[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@techno.com>
- To: papresco@technologist.com
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:14:24 -0500
[Paul Prescod:]
> 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.
-Steve
--
Steven R. Newcomb, President, TechnoTeacher, Inc.
srn@techno.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:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
