• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 20:33:16 -0400

At 08:14 PM 9/23/2001 -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
>"I agree that the XML's namespace syntax is needlessly complicated and
>confusing. Nonetheless, an XML API cannot fix the problem by pretending XML
>is less
>complicated than it really is. ElectricXML may feel easier at first than
>more XML-compatible APIs like SAX, DOM, and JDOM; but it's bound to cause
>more pain in the long run. "
>
>I think there's an issue here that goes way beyond ElectricXML and
>namespaces: Are acts of "civil disobedience" against "needlessly complicated
>and confusing" specs a Good Thing because they point us in the right
>direction or a Bad Thing because they cause chaos?

You can say similar things about SOAP, as it forbids DOCTYPE 
declarations.  Wait a second, some people already _are_ asking that:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0203.html
(and Mike's answered as well.)

Could be some interesting if chaotic times ahead.

Simon St.Laurent
Associate Editor
O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>

• Prev by Date: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
• Next by Date: Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
• Previous by thread: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
• Next by thread: Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread