[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 10:35 AM 7/25/2002 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>>For a brief description of the kinds of problems I've heard in the field
>>(at conferences and an ACM tutorial), see:
>>http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200207/msg00965.html
>
>OK, I've read that. The first problem has nothing to do with URI-ness.
This:
>1) Developers who can't even figure out how the URI side of things works
>and can't find vocabulary to talk with each other about it. (This level
>of frustration seems mostly ignored here since we've all talked it to
>death.) Many of these people say screw it and simply use the QName as
>an identifier, ignoring the URIs completely. This produces much simpler
>code that works - up to a point. (Yes, I've since this in the wild, and
>repeatedly.)
has nothing to do with URI-ness?
I suppose that in a sense it's a rejection of URI-ness period, but the
causes of that rejection do appear to have SOMETHING to do with URI
non-features.
>I've never seen a programmer try to do that, with the exceptions of
>RDF-heads, who know what they're going to get.
Most of the people I've heard from who have those problems are looking for
schemas, typically W3C XML Schema. "Do as thou wilt; that is the law"[1]
seems to be what these folks get from the Namespaces in XML spec.
[1] - Aleister Crowley, supposedly.
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
