• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:53:29 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3C56F1C3.50504@r...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <DC3ZNKPNNI4YPN8RQ73URHBSKE775.3c56e3aa@MChamp> <3C56F1C3.50504@r...>

On Tuesday 29 January 2002 02:02 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> The idea is that there is no need to have globally unique names,
> because AFs explain how to map *your* locally unique names to
> *my* locally unique names.

Yep. I still believe that local processing always wins. From a 
practical perspective, the namespace prefix is usually a lot more 
useful than the namespace itself.

> Globally unique names are now a fact of life, however; in a sense,
> the battle was won when the domainists beat the bangists.

I disagree. Globally unique naming schemes always end up causing 
problems... the desirable namespace being much smaller that the 
available namespace (how many people want jersey.com I wonder?). The 
other thing is that the names themselves evolve over time.

Domain names are a perfect example... 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>

• References:
  • Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• 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