• To: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:04:44 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200111130008.AAA18294@p...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401C9B300@u...> <E163Qix-0008Gn-00@s...> <200111130008.AAA18294@p...>

On Monday 12 November 2001 07:08 pm, David Carlisle wrote:
> Whether any of the proposed solutions are too disruptive to be worth the
> benefits is a legitimate area of debate (and I'm not sure either way, to
> be honest) but you are aguing I think that there is no benefit at all
> which is where we disagree.

I'm more of the mind that standardization is not possible except for the 
trivial cases, and even for that, we have to add kludges. I'd rather embrace 
the fact that differences will exist, and make the best of it.

• References:
  • RE: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Next by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
• Previous by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread