RE: infinite depth to namespaces

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

I understand and am familiar with your views on 
closed groups and they are similar to mine.  I am 
possibly just more roadweary so don't fight the 
herd over that.   I'd like to keep the technical 
issues such as that here where everyone, technical 
and not so technical alike can see what XML is 
up against when it comes down to getting the 
application languages to interoperate via 
sharable infrastructures.  It isn't as easy or 
simple as once presented.  Also, for purely 
selfish reasons, I learn a lot from this and 
can't keep up with more lists.

To me, a PSVI via XML Schema is ok because 
once into an application language, what the 
processors do afterwards is purely application 
specific.  On the other hand, making all 
application languages (eg, XSLT) depend on 
that requires a different kind of contract, 
and assuming that any XML application language 
does, is simply wrong.  That goes against 
what markup has been about since before XML. 
The GIs are just labels and the markup inventors 
went to some trouble and pain to make sure that 
SGML at least was somewhat constrained on 
the front end.  It is not a programming language. 
The ambitions to do more on the front end are 
harmful.  However, once into an application 
language, that language community has to decide 
what is best for them and what contracts they 
can make with others.  It is no more right for 
XML to constrain that than for that to constrain XML.


Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]

I think you took quarantine to mean something stronger than I meant;
it's reasonably obvious that I don't support private discussions devoted
to solving public problems, especially in the XML field.