• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@c...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:16:49 -0500

A little of both.  We have to depend on the URI/URN/URL 
schemes ("something has to root it" - TimBL), and then 
there is the notion of what can be done reliably with 
the information when we have it *beyond* what is currently 
defined in the namespace spec (underdefined).  I believe most of 
the controversy is in the second problem, but the 
first reveals the theoretical Achilles Heel:  accepting 
a system definition in all of the information therefore 
weakening some aspects of reusability.   I don't consider that 
a showstopper.  People and systems are working with both 
problems and working reasonably well.   I'm fairly certain 
that without controversy, we would all be doing something 
more entertaining than XML. 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Fuchs, Matthew [mailto:matthew.fuchs@c...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 3:54 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE:  Has XML run its course?


But is that intrinsic or just an issue of primogeniture?

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]
> 
> Namespaces is the most controversial topic 
> because it does alter the definition of XML 1.0 
> quite directly and because it is underfined 
> and it's implications not well-understood. 

• Prev by Date: Re: Has XML run its course?
• Next by Date: RE: Has XML run its course?
• Previous by thread: RE: Has XML run its course?
• Next by thread: RE: Has XML run its course?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread