Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Rob Schoening <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:38:51 -0800
> > I'm a suspicious sort of bloke: what inference can I make from the
> > absence of any reference to Namespaces in these requirements?
>It means that the WG could declare victory without specific namespace
>support if it wanted to. XML 1.0 is the bottom layer (a la IP), and
>Namespaces form a higher layer (a la TCP), and the Infoset could end
>up working at either level;
This is the crux of the problem. Putting the markup spec at the bottom of a
stack, as it were, automatically gives it a more significant status than the
higher-level specs. Have the working groups stopped to reflect on the
signifigance of this assumption? This is a really big deal.
This has all the makings of a written langauge that is too difficult to
speak because the ideosycrasies of the written grammer gum up the "higher"
This is why no one speaks latin. This is why it was so difficult for
programmers to communicate with each other without switching to another
langauge altogether (like UML).
This layered approach to XML is burying its potential.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)