[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Namespaces Defined
- From: Dylan Walsh <Dylan.Walsh@Kadius.Com>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:28:06 +0100
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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
>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
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...
>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.