OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Announce: XML Schema, The W3C's Object-Oriented Descriptio

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Problem is, a coach that doesn't know how and when 
to pick the best players hasn't a prayer of winning.

Does anyone else find it discomfiting that the question 
of version numbers and namespaces was raised some time 
ago and was dismissed without resolution?  We either 
have a lousy learning curve in this community or we 
are very good at postponing proposing a solution to 
a problem until we are a few hundreds yards from 
the iceberg, and even then, momentum affects outcomes.

Not to pick on either of you, but this is illuminating 
when posted on the same day:

Rick Jeliffe:  " All a namespace does is set general semantics."

David Carlisle: "Namespaces are not about semantics they are about names."

I know the arguments on each side of this.  It still comes down 
to expectations of interpretive communities.  The lack of 
consistent observable behavior given two interpretations of 
the same code system is the classic definition of the failure 
to communicate.   I think it time to put away the distraction 
that something with a protocol morph appended to the front 
of it is just a name.  That is irrelevant if the framework 
does not give the author a choice about the operator that 
can be applied to any value with that name.

I really don't care if one does or does not dereference a 
namespace value.  It is useful to do that and obvious.  I 
do care that given one, I cannot divine the intent.  That's 
just dumb design.  SGML avoided it.  The WWW embraces it 
like hemlock and expects everyone else to.  Dumb.  Just dumb.

URI != URL.  An abstraction that leads to an ambiguity of 
this type simply isn't useful globally.  It is as if one 
is programming in a language that requires all variables 
to be declared in scope and forgets  that every use 
of i in a for loop increment stomps every other use of it. 

j != i


From: Michael Fitzgerald [mailto:mike@wyeast.net]

Delayed reply:

Other lessons are that XML and related specs must evolve and that the best
players don't always get picked and as Knute Rockne said "Prayer always
works better best when you have big players" (paraphrase).


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS