Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:14:24 -0500
> I believe that through a careful agreement upon and application of
> definitions, we can get rid of most complaints about the namespaces
> proposal and remove all overlap between that proposal and things
> like architectural forms and XSchemas (under development).
If that's true, then that's GREAT!
However, I keep stumbling over a problem in my own mind. (Maybe it's
just too obvious for me to see it.) Using your defined terms, please
explain the usefulness and/or purpose -- in terms of how it furthers
the cause of reliable, vendor-neutral information interchange -- of
declaring that a real or conceptual object exists, in the absence of
any interchangeable definition of what that object is, or what
constraints it must conform to in order to be processable.
Steven R. Newcomb, President, TechnoTeacher, Inc.
email@example.com http://www.techno.com ftp.techno.com
voice: +1 972 231 4098 (at ISOGEN: +1 214 953 0004 x137)
fax +1 972 994 0087 (at ISOGEN: +1 214 953 3152)
3615 Tanner Lane
Richardson, Texas 75082-2618 USA
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)