RE: Namespaces Defined

[Dylan Walsh <Dylan.Walsh@Kadius.Com>]

From:	Bullard, Claude L (Len) [SMTP:clbullar@ingr.com]
Sent:	Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:59 PM

>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.  

Do you mean that a more clean namespace syntax would break backward
compatability with SGML? I'm not sure that would have been such tragedy.
Wasn't the issue of backward compatibility was fudged? - SGML was
changed to allow the few new features of XML. Therefore they could have
fudged just a little bit further if they wanted to incorporate a
namespace system into XML 1.0.

My impression was that the need for a namespace solution only became
apparent after the 1.0 Rec was finished or well underway. Or am I wrong?


>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.   

Do architectural forms address the namespace issue? I'm not familiar
with them.

>I don't care anymore.  There is too 
>much work stacking up to start over. 

Maybe the work stacking up is a sign that we could benefit from a fresh
start. 
Hmm.. how does one go about creating your own industry consortium with
yourself as a benign dictator? :-) 
Oh, I have to invent something as important as the WWW. Damn. Anyway, I
want to be a malevolent dictactor. It is more fun. Henceforth DML
(Dylans Markup Language) shall use EBCDIC encoding, and will contain
embedded self-modifying scripting code...

>>Nice similes. 
...
>But that not being the case, this year, schemas are the shovel and
namespaces are the ...  :-)

Maybe I shouldn't be giving you encouragement on the simile front.