Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Tim Bray <email@example.com>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:34:09 -0800
At 08:29 PM 29/12/00 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>The spec does say something - it does exist.
>Unfortunately, it serves far more as a point of contention than a point of
>authority. As one of its authors, I expect you'd disagree with that, but
>on flat logic, you've missed my point.
Wrong. The spec serves primarily as a guide to implementing software.
A huge amount of software has been implemented which conforms to the
namespace spec, including substantially all production-quality
XML-centric software anywhere in the world. This substantiates the
claim that Andrew and I are making: that the namespace spec does what
it sets out to do.
>The spec's problems do not lie in mere misunderstandings. They lie in the
>specification itself and what it attempts to do - and I'd suggest they also
>lie in similar problems inherited from RFC 2396.
The problems you are (and many others) have pointed out repeatedly
is that there are large unresolved problems about sharing semantics
and schemas and other related resources, which are highlighted but
not solved by XML namespaces.
I (and I suspect everyone else who helped build the spec) agree
that these are important and serious problems. I see no inconsistency
between this position and the position that the spec does what it
says it does, especially considering the evidence of its widespread