[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: infinite depth to namespaces

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:25:37 -0500

Since quarantined discussions created the original, 
and we are now well-informed as to the diversity 
of opinion and misconceptions, I'd say this thread 
has been a rousing success.  This is what XML-Dev 
was created to do and this is an occasion it has worked.

Now almost everyone realizes where the warts are.  For me, 
reading Matt's and Tim's posts have been revealing. 
Even the most well-informed and connected have problems 
with it (it's not simple) and the simple solutions don't 
satisfy everyone (nor are the requirements clear).

Quarantine is unwarranted.  Persistence will be. I'm 
still waiting to see what we will Dare To Do Less of.  

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]

I'm starting to wonder once again if we'll ever escape the endless cycle
of discussion about Namespaces in XML.  In January, with the advent of
RDDL, I was feeling hopeful.

More recently, the unqualified-names-in-qualified-context has led us
back to circling round and round.  While I'm glad to some extent that my
filters produced real (and occasionally outraged) response, I also hoped
that they might in some way represent an escape from the complex
implications of the subject. By providing conversion from one view of
the naming universe to the other, I hoped that maybe we could evade the
problems.

However, it seems that there are many of us who are uninterested in
escape. Some would rather turn toward an equally endless subject, PSVI,
to build solutions they think will work for their particular needs.
Others simply don't mind the ambiguity involved in using unqualified
names, knowing that their software will deal with it.  (They don't seem
especially concerned about other people's software.)

Simple best-practice solutions are fairly easy to come up with, but
seemingly just as easy to shoot down, suggesting that there may never be
consensus on these issues.

I almost wonder if it would be worth quarantining namespace discussions
to a separate home.  I'm not sure that would work either, though.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: infinite depth to namespaces
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Document Object Model (DOM) Level 3 XPath Specification updated
• Next by Date: RE: infinite depth to namespaces
• Previous by thread: RE: infinite depth to namespaces
• Next by thread: RE: infinite depth to namespaces
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread