• To: Jeff Greif <jgreif@a...>
• Subject: Re: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (wasRe: TAG on HLink)
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:54:50 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209271945480.20958-100000@s...>

> Without any knowledge of the operation's semantics?  Such a thing will 
> only be useful as a debugging tool.

I should have been more careful abuot editing before sending.  Replace "? 
S" with ", s"

It would, of course, be useful in scripting environments, where the script 
being built implicitly has knowledge of operation semantics.

There *was* a justification for MSFT's typelibs, after all.
	/r$

• References:
  • Re: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (wasRe: TAG on HLink)
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re: TAG on HLink)
• 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