• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:02:18 -0500
• In-reply-to: <E16Vb0C-000755-00@s...>

1/29/2002 11:13:50 AM, Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...> wrote:


>
>Absolutely agree. When namespaces were first proposed, I was among 
the 
>camp that believed (still do!!) that they did not belong in the 
core, 
>and that AF-style processing is usually enough. A lot of good 
lessons 
>can be learned from AF's.
>
>Alpha-renaming (aka namespaces) is useful, not necessary, and 
>certainly doesn't need standardization, even now. 

I'm not clear on how AFs handle the problem that namespaces address.  
AF's are about mapping names in one architecture to names in another 
architecture, right? Namespaces are about making names globally 
unique so that tags from different "architectures" can be mixed in 
the same document.  I can see that at some higher level they could be 
used as different ways to assign semantics to syntax, but that seems 
like an application of NS or AF, not inherent to either.

What am I missing, other than the fond memories of a dispute that I 
didn't participate in :~)  ?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: status of "collections" in XPath / XQuery
• Next by Date: RE: XMLSchema validation during an Update
• Previous by thread: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by thread: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread