[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Namespaces Defined
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Dylan Walsh <Dylan.Walsh@Kadius.Com>, xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:59:04 -0500
If the namespaces solution had
been advanced in XML 1.0, the way out
if it didn't work was to roll back to
SGML and start over. Given assumptions like
"internet time", "arch forms are worse" and
so on, the way it was done was the way it
was meant to be. There were all sorts of
hypotheticals out there before XML and namespaces.
The team picked these.
I don't care anymore. There is too
much work stacking up to start over.
Thralldom is like that: shovel and push
it into the next pit or be buried in it. If I had a
few million to live on or no kids, I'd be a
more globally concerned. But that not
being the case, this year, schemas
are the shovel and namespaces are the ... :-)
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Dylan Walsh [mailto:Dylan.Walsh@Kadius.Com]
Nice similes. Another cause is the fact that namespaces were created
after the XML 1.0 Rec. This forcibly lead to a solution that was more
contentious and less clean than a hypothetical "there from day one"