Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RE: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re:
 Right and ok by me. But it doesn't have a high reliability metric when one has to choose which of the local interpretions is right, testable, buyable, get's us out of the Factory Acceptance Test and into the field sort of thing. Even where there are data standards, local implementation is good for local implementors. Selling a shrinkwrap to a set of local requirements keeps the costs high. Remember, we had very advanced hypermedia applications before HTML and Mosaic. The IETM business couldn't take off because no local buyer interpreted the requirements the same way. Even TODAY, they are still trying to come up with a common player platform for all services, and this, some six years after the work on the MID stopped for all intents and purposes. They still don't buy a web system as an IETM common platform. The problem, I think in retrospect, with the ideas of Andreesen et al was that they a) didn't know they weren't doing something advanced b) believed that theirs was the only system that would count. As soon as they had competitors, they had trouble. len From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] Len Bullard writes: > One can always make a tag soup work in a closed application. > The problem is across applications, the kinds of things that > arch forms were originally proposed for. Note that I am > saying "for any given problem in every case". In other > words, the concept of complete self-describing types > begins to break down if these types have to integrate > with more than one application. IOW, the concepts that > lead to the namespaces solutions only cover a subset of the > problems they are proposed for. Then they begin to > break down. It depends on how you interpret "work". If you treat document interpretation as based on local understandings, not some global vision of agreement, then tag soup is fine. Local processors will figure out what they can, just as they would have to do so anyway. Namespaces provide extra information to that process, and so do architectural forms, and so do schemas of whatever type. Depends on what you want. Given your usual arguments, I doubt that's what you'd understand by "work", but it does just fine for some of us. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
