• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>, xml-dev@x...
• Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:16:59 -0500

Thanks John.  Same response moreorless from 
David M.  I understand that part.  The Oster 
system used dots for good reasons so there 
are existence proofs.  What may be the case 
here is that they use them for things that a 
namespace may be a better solution for in the 
long run, but some prefer six months of coding 
to two days of reading the documents. :-)

Thanks again.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram

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

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...]

The only argument I know of is that some people like to map GIs
into programming language identifiers, which often do not cope with
dots.  Same story with hyphens.

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Prev by Date: Microsoft's Role in the XML Community (WAS RE: Important: The SAX C++/C/COM Muddle)
• Next by Date: Re: Don't Connect the Dots
• Previous by thread: Re: Don't Connect the Dots
• Next by thread: Microsoft's Role in the XML Community (WAS RE: Important: The SAX C++/C/COM Muddle)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread