[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>
- To: Lisa Rein <lisarein@finetuning.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 00:45:29 -0500 (EST)
The namespace specification leaves it open for various parties
(or specifications) to appropriate the internet resource located
by a namespace name for their own use -- exclusive of others.
Tim Bray's catalogue proposal is a modular, extendable, and
most importantly, *non-exclusive* approach that will patch this
current namespace dilemma. If one spec should be able to
use the namespace name as a URL; then *all* of the specs
(from third parties as well) should have that same privledge.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Lisa Rein wrote:
> This kind of attitude kinda frustrates me because it's really an
> outdated perspective to just "not care" about other technologies that
> aren't on your immediate radar in your own little corner of the web
Many of us don't have time (nor the desire) to study each and every
W3C specification. We need clear and modular specifications.
We don't need an entangled web of inter-dependent recommendations.
IMHO, Paul's attitude is perfectly justified. We must
keep our sights set on the business problems that face us,
encourage technologies which enable solutions, and call-out
that which gets in our way. I hope this current issue gets
resolved in a manner that is clear and straight-forward.
Kind regards,
Clark
P.S. Content negotion is not clear nor is it straight-forward.
More importantly, it is not XML. Namespaces are XML,
I want an XML solution. Tim's catalogue proposal *is* XML.
|
