Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Sam Hunting <email@example.com>
- To: Sean McGrath <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 10:32:40 -0800 (PST)
Well, it's good to see XML-DEV ringing in the New Year with (ka-boom)
Yet Another Namespace Thread.... Plus ca change...
> As I have said before, perhaps it plays into
> the hands of those who know that the real "lock in" lies
> in the semantics which now, in the full glare of standards
> compliance, they can make proprietary.
This is interesting. It would explain two things about the W3C
Namespaces that I've always wondered about (correct me if I'm wrong,
(1) Lack of synonyms -- there's no way to assert, for a single element
(whoops, almost wrote generic identifier) that it belongs to more than
(2) Colonized syntax -- if attribute syntax had been adopted,
information owners would have been able to attach/detach namespaces at
will through defaulting mechanisms, instead of crudding up their
instances with them.
Of course, these are two good ways to avoid lock-in, so perhaps in
retrospect it's not surprising that they weren't adopted.
<!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!