• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re: TAG on HLink)
• From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
• Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:14:04 +0100

[ Len Bullard]
 >> Well-formedness simply isn't enough for interoperability;
 >> portability, yes, but not interoperability.

[Joe English]
 >To that I would add: XML namespaces don't solve the problem either.

To that I would add, that interoperability via standardised schemas has
been on the road for decades now and has, um, failed to deliver.
Namespaces are just one more part of that sui generis schema world view.
Is it time to declare this entire formulation of the solution
simple, elegant and wrong?

Perhaps constant context-dependent, on-the-fly
transformation is the only truth?

I wrote an article recently for ITWorld that gazes into this
abyss:
	http://www.itworld.com/nl/xml_prac/08222002/

Comments welcome.

Sean

• Prev by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Previous by thread: RE: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re: TAG on HLink)
• Next by thread: RE: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re: TAG on HLink)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread