• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XPointer crisis
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:58:48 -0500
• In-reply-to: <WWQD8EDE94SD9QKJMKA6SOXSB7UQ.3c5b005d@MChamp>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <WWQD8EDE94SD9QKJMKA6SOXSB7UQ.3c5b005d@MChamp>

On Friday 01 February 2002 03:53 pm, Mike Champion wrote:
> Sometimes we should Just Do It and let the abstractions sort
> themselves out in the fullness of time.  xml:id strikes me as one of
> those things.

Just as namespaces appeared at the time.

I'm not disagreeing with going ahead and using xml:id, but let's quit 
standardizing stuff... and start *using* stuff. If more people *used* 
stuff, they might find they can do a lot with things just as they are.

• References:
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by Date: RE: XPointer crisis
• Previous by thread: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by thread: Re: XPointer crisis
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread