Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re: [xml-dev] TAG on HLink)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:01:56 -0500
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
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
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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.