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

Re: Begging the Question

• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 07:48:33 -0500 (EST)

Rick Jelliffe writes:

 > I have just been re-reading the Namespaces spec very carefully, and the
 > conclusion I come to is that (not including the annexes) it is actually an
 > extremely well-written spec (not including the annexes).

I agree (including the qualification).

 > The problem is there is a need, and the namespaces spec is the last defined
 > layered so people find themseleves at a dead with it.

Bingo!  That's why we need to agree on the next layer (i.e. the data
layer), whether it be RDF, SOAP's serialization syntax, XTM, or
something else.  That's where humans will encode their assumptions of
meaning in ways that are not specific to single vocabularies.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Begging the Question
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• References:
  • RE: Begging the Question
    • From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@m...>
  • Re: Begging the Question
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespace Dereferencing: Erratum
• Next by Date: Re: Begging the Question
• Previous by thread: Re: Begging the Question
• Next by thread: Re: Begging the Question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread