[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:16:59 -0500
Thanks John. Same response moreorless from
David M. I understand that part. The Oster
system used dots for good reasons so there
are existence proofs. What may be the case
here is that they use them for things that a
namespace may be a better solution for in the
long run, but some prefer six months of coding
to two days of reading the documents. :-)
Thanks again.
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
The only argument I know of is that some people like to map GIs
into programming language identifiers, which often do not cope with
dots. Same story with hyphens.
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
