On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Michael Kay <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I am arguing against RTFM as a stock response.
There are times when it is definitely appropriate, but I don't think
this is one of them.
Heiko Niemann started this thread by asking for advice on how to use a
particular construct, and various people offered advice that addressed his
question.
You, Ihe, then raised a question about who was to blame if programmers got it
wrong, the programmers or the spec writers?
We have an honourable and valuable tradition in the programming profession
that we try to solve problems without apportioning blame.
If there are usability problems, it can certainly be instructive to study how
they arose, and how the user's expectations of the system came to be
different from its actual behaviour. But you don't seem to be engaging in a
constructive discussion of that question. Discussing "who is to blame" is
almost never useful, because usually, no-one is to blame; the cause of
usability problems is generally that the designer didn't understand the
mindset of the user, and vice versa, and neither can be blamed for that in a
world where the the user was not available to be consulted at the time the
design was done.
As it happens, no one responded by saying "read the F manual". On the
contrary, several people contributed information derived from the F manual,
to spare Heiko the trouble of reading it.
Martin Holmes mholmes(_at_)uvic(_dot_)ca via lists.mulberrytech.com
3:28 PM (2 hours ago)
to xsl-list
text()..... as in text()...... not text() interleaved with comment nodes.
I must have missed that version of the spec. :-)
Cheers,
Martin
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--