[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: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Subject: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:51:28 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3D4579F8.9000705@t...>

Tim Bray wrote:
> Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> > But as for concrete proposals, see:
> > http://monasticxml.org/namespaces.html
> 
> Not bad at all, the whole series, bypass the introductory rants and 
> there's not much to disagree with in the technical recommendations. 

Thanks _very_ much for the compliments on the technical recommendations
(your one deeply contested erratum aside.)

On the other hand, I don't think readers will get much out of just the
technical recommendations.  I'm fed up with trying to explain these
things without some kind of context explaining the why, perhaps because
I'm fed up with organizations who have done the same in their
specification-publishing process.

I'm well aware that many people would prefer to think as little as
possible and just get their work done, but damn I'm tired of writing for
them.  I'd much rather they have a chance to develop their own opinions,
even opposing opinions, as they read.
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: RE: Borland C++ and Expat - performance hit.
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: Scopes trial: Is there a missing piece in the XML puzzle?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread