Programming language

James Robertson jwrober at
Sat Feb 5 13:28:01 PST 2005

Hui Zhou wrote:

> I thought everyone's expectations were the usability of alfs, not the 
> demanding of profile writen in XML with specific complexity  and 
> internal communication protocol.
>> I'm beginning to think you're only writing these comments to hinder 
>> progress.  As such, as from now, I'm going to no longer waste my time 
>> on such meaningless conversation.

OK, now you are getting on my nerves and I have tough ones.  You clearly 
have not ready anything we have written down.  It clearly states in the 
SRS that we expect full backwards compatibility to nALFS 1.2x profiles 
written on the 3.1 ALFS DTD.  We *are* *not* *going* *to* *write* *a* 
*different* *profile* *language* *period*.  I can not make this any more 
clear.  I could care less about how much you think it is a pain in the 
neck to write a alfs profile using the existing syntax.  I am no where a 
programmer and I have no trouble creating some pretty custom wacky 
profiles to do what I want them to do.  What is the big deal anyways?

No one else repsond to this.  This conversation is closed.

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list