[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jeff Lowery <email@example.com>, 'John Cowan' <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:46:53 -0500
Again, don't confuse message with medium. A namespace
has no necessary effect on the meaning of the message. It
is a medium-specific or systemic solution to the problem of
disambiguating syntactically identical productions.
That you might then use that for meaningfulness is
possible but not necessary. Stephen Jay Gould
compares this to the spandrels in a church. They
are a side effect of the architecture that was
adapted for use in housing images of the evangelists,
then to the four sacred rivers etc, but that aspect
of evolution has nothing to do with their origin.
Monkeys are free. It is the joy of the poverty
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:email@example.com]
No explicit semantics, certainly, but surely the whole point of a namespace
is to imbue its names with with meaning. Unless there's a thousand monkeys
typing well-formed XML schemas somewhere...