Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 04:52 PM 9/27/2002 +0000, Arjun Ray wrote:
>| lot of work on it. We just couldn't figure out a way to do it that
>| would go over cleanly.
>
>Go over cleanly, as in with the folks who would have slapped down any
>sugeestion of an approach like Steven Pemberton's?
Yep. Four years ago, when we first approached the problem, it was
my perception that the folks at the W3C weren't keen on any solution that
wasn't pure XML 1.0 + Namespaces. It must be understood that, at the time,
we didn't have the wealth of experience that we now have with pure XML +
Namespaces -not- being the panacea for all the world's problems.
>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?
"Prejudice" is a rather strong term. It wasn't politically
feasible, at the time. And I am not speaking for the rest of XML Linking WG
at the time --- I'm speaking as a private individual. It was around the
same time that I suggested to an XML luminary that a unified processing
model for XML, XSL, and XLink would be a Very Good Thing and got told it
would never happen because of politics.
Anyone who thinks that the standards process is not fraught with
political perils is naive. And, unfortunately, anybody who thinks that
standard organizations are, thusly, a bad thing is also naive. The fact of
the matter is that people are doing the best job they can. Rather than jump
on the "all standards are good" bandwagon or the equally foolish "W3C is
bad!" bandwagon, I'd rather encourage the folks involved to take a breath
and attempt some sort of compromise.
This "good guy, bad guy" garbage is really solving nothing. It's
hand-waving. As I've said before in this forum, I'd rather see technical
solutions. HLink was a good start, in my opinion. It's obvious that people
want attribute remapping; while others, like me, are quite keen on namespaces.
So...who's going to step up to the plate?
--->Ben
|
