• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: Rethinking namespaces,attribute remapping (was Re: TAG on HLink)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:28:40 -0400
• In-reply-to: <MJTOJESRXNVS96A5VPZV5Z74D0LH2.3d94a15a@MChamp>

9/27/2002 2:20:10 PM, Mike Champion <mc@x...> wrote:

>
>
>This is, admittedly a REAL simple use case (they only look for
>a small number of tags in a very flat XML hierarchy) but seems
>to at least minimally prove the concept that well-formed XML
>is more than a "non-starter."   Getting those folks to agree
>on a common schema is EMPRICALLY a non-starter :-)

BTW, I REALLY REALLY hope that Len's customers in Public Safety agencies
get along better than the RSS folks <duck>.  I'm not disputing
that authoritative schema are best *if* they can be agreed upon
and enforced, just arguing that "tag soup" beats non-"self-describing"
alternatives such as CSV if they can't.

• References:
  • Re: RE: Rethinking namespaces,attribute remapping (was Re: TAG on HLink)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

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