[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Is this thread drifting toward a discussion of how
> XML infrastructure should evolve to enable component
> support below the level of the plugin? IOW, if what
> is needed is processors, in effect, MS behaviors
> attached through CSS stylesheets work reasonably
> well. My opinion at this time is that using
> namespaces to infer or direct behaviors is overkill
> and more complicated than is needed.
We're using namespaces as a more granular form of media type. Media
types have served us well so far, and they don't infer any type of
behaviour. Both just assert "this is <some format>", and that can be
used in conjunction with a mapping from <some format> to <some chunk
of software>.
Media types are just too coarse grained. They were designed to be this
way because they were usable for any content format, so the content had
to be almost (e.g. charset) entirely opaque. Do you think it would have
been designed differently if the designers knew that there was only one
possible syntax? I do.
> Are we our own worst enemy for the keep it simple
> requirement?
If simplicity was our only objective, life would be a bit boring, no?
We can progress *and* do it with simplicity in mind.
MB
--
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
|
