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

RE: Namespaces Defined

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Dylan Walsh <Dylan.Walsh@K...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:59:04 -0500

If the namespaces solution had 
been advanced in XML 1.0, the way out 
if it didn't work was to roll back to 
SGML and start over.  Given assumptions like 
"internet time", "arch forms are worse" and 
so on, the way it was done was the way it 
was meant to be.   There were all sorts of 
hypotheticals out there before XML and namespaces. 
The team picked these.

I don't care anymore.  There is too 
much work stacking up to start over. 
Thralldom is like that:  shovel and push 
it into the next pit or be buried in it.   If I had a 
few million to live on or no kids, I'd be a 
more globally concerned. But that not 
being the case, this year, schemas 
are the shovel and namespaces are the ...  :-)

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Dylan Walsh [mailto:Dylan.Walsh@K...]

Nice similes. Another cause is the fact that namespaces were created
after the XML 1.0 Rec. This forcibly lead to a solution that was more
contentious and less clean than a hypothetical "there from day one"
system.

• Prev by Date: RE: Namespaces Defined
• Next by Date: RE: Character &#0;
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespaces Defined
• Next by thread: RE: Namespaces Defined
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread