• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>, XML Developers List <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:26:46 -0700

At 03:40 PM 16/06/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Somewhere in my dim memory I recall an 
>argument about using periods in generic 
>identifers and why that is a bad thing 
>in XML while not forbidden.  Can someone 
>please enlighten me with an explanation or URL 
>to this notion?
>
><confused.notion></confused.notion>

I can't think of a single thing wrong with doing this.  You won't
be able to map element types to java class names unless the
package hierarchy matches your naming convention.  But I think the
direct-java-mapping (or perl or whatever) never was going to work
that well anyhow, you usually end up needing a dispatch table for
some reason or another.-T


***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************

• References:
  • Don't Connect the Dots
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Authors of 'Professional XML'
• Next by Date: FOs again
• Previous by thread: Re: Don't Connect the Dots
• Next by thread: Re: Don't Connect the Dots
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread