• To: The Deviants <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:52:07 -0500
• In-reply-to: <1012413754.1809.1083.camel@l...>

1/30/2002 1:02:33 PM, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> 
wrote:

>Weirder, actually. Like:
><test http://foo.com/bar/baz="value" />

What's weird about that (other than the http:// ...and all the 
baggage that drags along with it)?  I thought terseness was not a 
consideration for XML?  

There was a long, long sml-dev thread on this horrid subject, and the 
conclusion (as I recall) that simply putting the full domain 
qualifier in the markup vocabulary was the cleanest solution for 
everyone concerned (except the typist).

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• References:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There isa meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Previous by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There isa meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread