Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David LeBlanc <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Ann Navarro <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 16:42:23 -0700
I'm reminded of the C++ standardization process where C++ was to be like C
only as necessary and no closer.
My point is that too much specification leads to too a rigid and inflexible
standard that people won't use which is about as useless as no standard at
Is there a compelling reason to specify all the names and meanings of names
and scope of names in namespaces? Who will be the ultimate determinator of
This is just going to lead to politicalization imho.
At 03:58 PM 9/5/99 -0400, Ann Navarro wrote:
>Through several recent private conversations, it has become very clear to
>me (and I believe to those others), that the XML community is facing a
>significant unfilled need. One that if left unfilled as we move forward
>with new and more complex activities, will result in even more difficulties
>than we currently face.
>That need is: a formal deterministic means of discovery.
>The authors of the namespace recommendation firmly stand behind the
>*intent* of the rec, in simply providing a name.
>The "rest of the world", is looking for a means of discovering what belongs
>with that name, it's associated definitions, semantics, and other data that
>may be necessary to complete their operations.
>In most ways, both groups are "right".
>Proposed continued work within the XML space at the W3C may address this in
>part, but not, in my opinion, in full.
>Many of the arguments we face in namespaces come about due to the unspoken
>argument that either a: they simply didn't go far enough, or b: additional
>work is necessary to complement them. This assertion has never really come
>to the forefront in our discussions on this topic.
>Until that time, these arguments over the appropriate choices in
>namespaces, in XHTML or anywhere else, will only proliferate.
>Rather than trying to second guess what those mechanisms may be, I'd
>personally prefer to simply not address the question of namespaces in XHTML
>until we know more (meaning remain silent on the issue in the XHTML PR, or
>purposefully defer within the spec): rather than being forced to make a
>choice between 1 or 3. Though if I must choose, my choice is still with 3,
>in that I find it easier to scale back granularity at a later date, than to
>Food for thought at all levels, not just for this one issue.
>Author of Effective Web Design: Master the Essentials
>Coming in September --- Mastering XML
>Founder, WebGeek Communications http://www.webgeek.com
>Vice President-Finance, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org
>Director, HWG Online Education
>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
>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)
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)