[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1

• To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:31:45 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

I trust these are people trying to do the 
right things from their own points of view. 
We all are.  I insist on reliable processes 
because these points of view are divergent. 
In SGML, changes were made conservatively 
because very large and very expensive systems 
would be affected.  Changes to XML can be a 
lot more affective, so an even more conservative 
viewpoint is required, IMO.

Management training is that until a case 
with value is made, the answer is always No.
Why?  It is easier to change no to yes than 
yes to no.  So far, I haven't heard the 
value argument for folding namespaces into 
the core.  If there is no official action 
to do that, then this thread can die.

len


From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]

On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 12:30, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> The point is not pessimistic; it is conservative. 
> It is based on prior experience with the W3C 
> specification process.  Namespaces are a good 
> example.  
> 
> First, they were just name disambiguators, hidden 
> system properties, then schema references, making them 
> part of the content.  We seem to stay on the 
> slippery slope of minimalism and incomplete 
> design guidelines.  That makes these processes 
> unreliable.  

I have to share Len's concerns about the slippery slope here, especially
given (unofficial, but deeply misguided IMHO) postings like:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Mar/0016.html

The "need for speed" in namespace dereferencing?  Scares me pretty
thoroughly and makes me wonder whether namespaces were a good idea yet
again.

> So experience says, don't believe or trust; 
> specify, verify, and hold 
> to the original agreement until a case is 
> made for change which adds value, not simply 
> specification compression.  

"Trust but verify" doesn't seem to be enough these days.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by Date: Re: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Previous by thread: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread