On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, MJ Ray wrote: > giacomo wrote: > >said that, using your words, that the "web tech population nowadays" > >understand HTML so there isn't a big step to understand XML and have a > >syntax that is "procedural" to express logic for flowmaps and I meant > >that Scheme isn't popular in the "web tech population nowadays" sdo I'm > >-1 using Scheme syntax. Point. > > So Cocoon can only use things that are already "popular in the 'web tech > population nowadays'"? This concept sickens me. Would Cocoon have ever > come this far if it always followed the orthodoxy?
You are exaggerating as well ;). You have not understud my point which is: "Should we introduce another syntax for something that only requires a dozend keywords to be expressed?" > I'm not saying that introducing the scheme syntax is the right solution, but > this "conservatism for marketing reasons" is very worrying, Sorry, this has nothing to do with marketing. It has to do with the learning courve to master to be able to use Cocoon (which is alread high). > using words like > "exotic" as criticisms of relatively ancient established technologies. Sorry, if you felt upset about it. > Please let the experiments continue and don't be afraid to develop or > introduce something new if it is what is required. Exactly. Is it required? > Let's be creative! Sure. But I don't want Cocoon to be the playground for unneeded technology but for community agreed and needed architecture. Giacomo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
