• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: TAG on HLink
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:26:14 -0700
• In-reply-to: <r01050300-1015-A7977446D23B11D685CC0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• References: <4.3.1.2.20020927130506.02d3ffb8@m...>

At 01:07 PM 9/27/2002 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> > 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?

Relying right now on a 3+ year history from memory (not digging through 
archives at this point), I understood the objection to be very similar to 
the conversation you're having with Harold right now -- how clean it might 
be for a processor vs. how (non) usable and verbose it would be for humans.

For an archeological exercise I may try to dig up public communication on 
the topic over the weekend.

Ann

• References:
  • Re: TAG on HLink
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • Re: TAG on HLink
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• 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