Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 12:30, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> The point is not pessimistic; it is conservative.
> It is based on prior experience with the W3C
> specification process. Namespaces are a good
> First, they were just name disambiguators, hidden
> system properties, then schema references, making them
> part of the content. We seem to stay on the
> slippery slope of minimalism and incomplete
> design guidelines. That makes these processes
I have to share Len's concerns about the slippery slope here, especially
given (unofficial, but deeply misguided IMHO) postings like:
The "need for speed" in namespace dereferencing? Scares me pretty
thoroughly and makes me wonder whether namespaces were a good idea yet
> So experience says, don't believe or trust;
> specify, verify, and hold
> to the original agreement until a case is
> made for change which adds value, not simply
> specification compression.
"Trust but verify" doesn't seem to be enough these days.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!