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

RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:30:11 -0400
• In-reply-to: <013f01c23980$6daf0920$0200a8c0@skonnardomni>

Aaron Skonnard asks:
> I think I understand what you're saying. What I'm failing to see is
> how this simplifies anything from the coder's perspective if it
> doesn't impact the way attributes are reflected in the APIs (as Tim
> Bray noted). Developers still have to know your rule when writing the
> code. How would it be any less confusing than it is now? 

As with all Best Practices recommendations, its effectiveness is
determined by how widespread its use is, and whether or not it
eventually influences specs.

At least I'm hoping to provide a rule-by-reference, rather than having
developers discover this over and over independently.

Also, for future reference, monasticxml.org isn't particularly
interested in the "coder's perspective".  It's squarely and very
deliberately focused on markup works, not what's easiest for programmers
from other perspectives.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread