RE: [xml-dev] Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re: [xml-dev] TAG on HLink)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Will you end up back at Groves with a different 
set of authors and terms but essentially the same 
concepts?  IOW, XML ++ ends up being SGML/HyTime/DSSSL 
but yetAnotherHistorySourceObscuringMarketing 
campaign is required except this time the old 
fuddy duddies are at MIT instead of San Jose.

Maybe as Didier said, you are hitting the limits 
of XML and need to move on to the parent.  How 
much crow can the W3C eat before it loses its 
mandate based on the loss of its credibility?

That may not be important.  Suggest someone 
really interested in this make a list of the 
features that XMLZed would have that XML 
doesn't and compare those to the parent to 
see how much overlap is there.  You may discover 
that you are simply at the point on the journey 
on the road where that onramp Steve Newcomb 
talked about is finally open and ready for 
new traffic.

len


From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]

I seem to be agreeing with Ann a lot lately.  Where do we start?

> Well said.
> 
> At 09:23 AM 9/27/2002 -0400, Mike Champion wrote:
> 
> >It seems to me that the time might be ripe for a reconsideration (in
> > xml-dev, academia, various monasteries and mad scientist
> >laboratories) of how XML++ might work without colonified namespaces.
> 
> Ann