xml-dev - Re: "Clean Specs"

["Don Park" <donpark@quake.net>]

>Yeah, I wasn't either yesterday.  Apologies to everyone here for being
>nasty.  Everyone in the XML activity takes the opinions expressed here
>very seriously.


Thank you very much for taking my comments positively.  I felt bad after
writing it.  So much for the power of e-mail.  I would like to apologize for
the flipant tone of my comments.

>I gotta say, though, the XML spec now feels to me like a ramshackle
>compromise that only just barely works, while namespaces do one simple
>thing and nail it down tight as a drum.   Here's how bad it is; I'm
>working on an Annotated namespaces, just like annotated XML - and I'm
>having serious difficulty figuring out what to write. -Tim


I do realize that the XML spec is leaky in certain respect but I felt it is
very clear as a whole although I am unable to point out exactly what makes
it so.  Perhaps it was the difference in the the nature of the problems.
The namespace problem is indeed very complex as you pointed out before.
There are many solutions I can think of but I can't think of a single
solution that addresses all the issues without looking awkward in some
respect.

I look forward to your Annotated Namespaces.

Sitting awkwardly,

Don Park
Docuverse



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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)