• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:16:01 -0500
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF6303@HQ5>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF6303@HQ5>

On Thursday 24 January 2002 06:10 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Or just mail java back and forth.

Blech.

> Seriously, until we review all the historical approaches,
> we keep going over the same old ground and just changing
> names on the signposts.

Right. Still, even after reviewing history, the solution isn't clear. 
My feeling is that we can do a lot for standardizing application 
deployment (hard coded semantics as it were) while avoiding the hairy 
bits.

• References:
  • RE: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by Date: Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: AF and namespaces, once again
• Next by thread: RE: Taxonomies?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread