[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Has XML run its course?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Fuchs, Matthew" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:16:49 -0500
A little of both. We have to depend on the URI/URN/URL
schemes ("something has to root it" - TimBL), and then
there is the notion of what can be done reliably with
the information when we have it *beyond* what is currently
defined in the namespace spec (underdefined). I believe most of
the controversy is in the second problem, but the
first reveals the theoretical Achilles Heel: accepting
a system definition in all of the information therefore
weakening some aspects of reusability. I don't consider that
a showstopper. People and systems are working with both
problems and working reasonably well. I'm fairly certain
that without controversy, we would all be doing something
more entertaining than XML.
From: Fuchs, Matthew [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 3:54 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Has XML run its course?
But is that intrinsic or just an issue of primogeniture?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Namespaces is the most controversial topic
> because it does alter the definition of XML 1.0
> quite directly and because it is underfined
> and it's implications not well-understood.