• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: limits of the generic
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 06:33:19 +0000
• In-reply-to: <00c001c2677c$958ff380$fe193044@tbp1>
• References: <r01050300-1015-C8E93A58D25E11D685CC0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]> <00f201c266ac$514acd60$fe193044@tbp1> <23ncpu0hvqo4lqkle7p0jguf2e3hdgsgn8@4...> <00ab01c26768$cc0e1590$fe193044@tbp1> <5u0dpuklj4pag2rhr3l486orf0i29ogasr@4...> <00c001c2677c$958ff380$fe193044@tbp1>

"Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...> wrote:

| I view the current namespaces as being basically a standardized way to 
| mung the names. 

Fair enough.

| Out of a universe of possible approaches we select one.  The way I look 
| at it, that is a constraint or specialization, even though it allows one 
| to distinguish between vocabularies.

Unfortunately, that has always been a non-problem.  But you're right, it
is a constraining of the original spec.

• References:
  • limits of the generic
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Next by Date: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Previous by thread: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by thread: More namespaces fun!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread