• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: TAG on HLink
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:07:50 -0400
• In-reply-to: <4.3.1.2.20020927130506.02d3ffb8@m...>

> At 04:52 PM 9/27/2002 +0000, Arjun Ray wrote:
> 
> >It sounds like you're saying that XLink wound up with no (re)mapping
> >mechanism because there was no way found to appease prejudice.  Have
I
> >understood this correctly?
> 
> Pretty much -- solutions that would have met our requirements were 
> dismissed as 'un-elegant'.

Just for clarity, does that mean that (for those making the decisions)
name-disambiguation approaches were considered "elegant" while
name-equivalence approaches were considered otherwise?

-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: TAG on HLink
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• References:
  • Re: TAG on HLink
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: TAG on HLink
• Next by Date: RE: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (wasRe: TAG on HLink)
• Previous by thread: Re: TAG on HLink
• Next by thread: Re: TAG on HLink
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread