• To: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>
• Subject: Re: Internet-Draft: Media Feature - xmlns
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 23 Jan 2002 10:48:20 -0500
• Cc: Don Box <dbox@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200201230553.AAA04548@m...>
• References: <200201230553.AAA04548@m...>

On Wed, 2002-01-23 at 00:53, Mark Baker wrote:
> Re Simon's draft, I have a comment about this sentence;
> 
> "While a list of
>  namespaces cannot tell a recipient application everything about the
>  use of those namespaces and there interactions in a given document,
>  it can provide a baseline understanding."
> 
> I don't think it helps with the "understanding" at all, by itself.  You
> need the document's structure to provide the context necessary for
> extracting meaning.  Without that context, "all" I think you get is some
> idea of what processors you'll need to process that document.  That's an
> important optimization, but it's not "understanding".

I agree, and I'll categorize the use of "understanding" as an
unfortunate accident on my part.  Given my general hostility to things
semantic, it is definitely a slip.
 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Internet-Draft: Media Feature - xmlns
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Internet-Draft: Media Feature - xmlns
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Next by Date: Re: Internet-Draft: Media Feature - xmlns
• Previous by thread: Re: Compound processing
• Next by thread: Re: Internet-Draft: Media Feature - xmlns
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread