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

Re: cooperating with XML was Re: Co-operating with Architectur

• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: cooperating with XML was Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:17:48 -0500
• In-reply-to: <0a9101c1ab22$4aac2d00$0a2e249b@n...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@p...> <E16WVkM-0007xD-00@s...> <0a9101c1ab22$4aac2d00$0a2e249b@n...>

On Friday 01 February 2002 08:13 am, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> I think there is great value in conventions such as XML namespaces,
> and the value of cooperation outweighs any deficiencies, and perhaps
> even any complexity, introduced as a way of getting different people
> to sit down at the same table.

I have no problem with convention... but again, my points were a) we 
didn't need to ram the standardization down people's throat, and 
instead let convention evolve, b) namespace are not inherent to XML 
and do not belong in the data model.

> A misconception that many technology folks have (and I am
> specifically not addressing this to you in person, or to anyone in
> particular) is that the technology exists to be pure, or elegant,
> and that code exists to be efficient. 

Well, my motto is "to the least possible that doesn't preclude further 
evolution". I'm a minimalist. Namespaces don't fit into that bucket.

• References:
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • cooperating with XML was Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by Date: Re: life support for DTDs? was RE: misprocessing namespaces)
• Previous by thread: Re: cooperating with XML was Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread