• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>, xml-dev@i...
• Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 09:36:32 -0800

At 08:00 AM 2/5/99 -0600, Paul Prescod wrote:
>I don't think that "average developers" need to worry about namespaces. It
>is quite simple to build powerful, useful applications without them. 

Yes, it's possible, but it seems crystal clear to me that a year or
so from now, the "average XML document", were such a thing to exist,
would have namespaces.  Office 2000 is full of 'em.  RDF is full of
'em.  And if nothing else, old-fashioned document wrangling is, I
predict, going to be dipping regularly into namespaces like, for
example, HTML.

Which is why it really is a problem that something that we tried so
hard to make simple is being perceived (rightly or wrongly) as
complex and intimidating. -Tim

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAX, Java, and Namespaces (was Re: Restricted NamespacesforXML)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: COBOL XML parser?
• Next by Date: Architectural Forms and Namespaces (Was: Re: SAX, Java, and Namespaces )
• Previous by thread: Re: Namespaces and DTDs was RE: Namespaces and interoperability (was Re: SAX, Java, and Namespaces)
• Next by thread: Re: SAX, Java, and Namespaces (was Re: Restricted NamespacesforXML)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread