Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: 'Gavin Thomas Nicol' <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: [xml-dev ] There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:50:11 -0600
It was during the "well-formed only" period. We got a bit
lost in the hyped statements for awhile as the message slowly
migrated to "well, we really mean, kill DTDs for something better
we will create later". Like the "namespaces are only for
disambiguation" threads, it left a lot of people mistrustful
about the emperor's new clothes.
As Goldfarb said so many years ago, "somewhere a byte has
to change state". The old brouhahas over processing
instructions was the SGML version of this same issue:
should processing be coupled to the instance. Deprecating
them started about 90% of the other projects the results
of which are still scattered around the markup landscape.
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:email@example.com]
I'm trying to remember when people started assuming that a naked instance was in and of itself useful.... when the XML activity was kicked off, the charter explicitly included bits that would make XML actually useful as a generic markup language (stylesheets and linking in particular). Somewhere along the line, we lost focus of the need for things to *process* XML as part of the application.