• From: Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@e...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 02:23:13 -0700

<too-late-now>
Discussing this article with a friend of mind left us with a huge question:
Why didn't XML pursue a namespace solution more like Java packages. There
has to be a good reason-- maybe it is that packages can be a pain. It has
always seemed easier to get my head around a "package" (think UPS box full
of items) instead of a "namespace". In addition to this, people shouldn't
expect to resolve a package name per se, whereas a URL is begging to be
resolved. It does seem to simplify the idea of separating vocabularies
nicely...
</too-late-now>

Any insights?

Jeff Rafter
Defined Systems
http://www.defined.net
XML Development and Developer Web Hosting

• References:
  • RE: Namespaces Defined
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPath: position of the parent ?
• Next by Date: Re: (char)0 handling proposal
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespaces Defined
• Next by thread: RE: Namespaces Defined
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread