• From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@i...>
• To: 'Matt Sergeant' <matt@s...>,"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:52:27 +0100

> > At 01:03 PM 7/26/00 +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > >Since then many people have gone away and actually produce working
> > >programs that use namespaces effectively. Witness the applications of
> RDF
> > >and XSLT to name just two.
> > 
> > Working applications on that level, though promising in their own right,
> > are barely a sign of a functioning standard.  
> 
> But they demonstrate that the standard is usable for a large enough subset
> of work to make it useful.
> 
	[MHK>]  And as an implementor of an XSLT processor, I might add that
the namespaces concept probably doubles the complexity of the processor. The
same benefits could have been achieved so much more simply with a cleaner
specification.  The real mistake was trying to construct something so
fundamental by defining a layer on top of XML, rather than making it part of
the core syntax. 

• Prev by Date: Re: Can an element be sometimes empty?
• Next by Date: Re: XML in .NET - more than just SOAP?
• Previous by thread: Re: Question About Namespaces and DTDs
• Next by thread: RE: Proposed New XSL Element -" xsl:insert" - Could it be conside red
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread