Lists Home |
Date Index |
"Thomas B. Passin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
| Namespaces alter the generic pattern but are still pretty generic.
I find this statement quite inscrutable. In what sense are namespaces (as
defined in the Rec) "generic"?
What is generic about a device that does not allow values to be shared by
names from different taxonomies? (As in, why had it to be xlink:href
*versus* html:src?) What is generic about an approach calling for extra
elements without any determinate notion of opacity, that also need to be
kept away from pretty printers lest the whitespace gum up the "careful"
coding (tags jammed together to box the shared value)?
| It is like tightening the tolerances on screws.
No, it's like saying that screws must work for all materials.