• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 21:02:56 +0000
• In-reply-to: <3ED67604.E2F22A95@s...>
• References: <ab7bdvs3gol4j4trlefsiq6g4bfbaou70f@4...> <3ED5C2E7.4060805@p...> <gbjcdv80mdhn78c8egd27ltqmndcf64kin@4...> <3ED65B5E.6020600@p...> <c9rcdvos4rkru5l9eg2rgu7ohiulif4fd9@4...> <3ED67604.E2F22A95@s...>

james anderson <james.anderson@s...> wrote:
| Arjun Ray wrote:
 
|> Correct.  The spec is silent on this, and thus useless for the general
|> problem of vocabulary combination *by syntax*. 
| 
| that's like claiming that a yardstick is useless because one cannot use 
| it to measure surface area.

No, it's like claiming that a yardstick is useless for measuring
temperature.  (In other words, a non-solution, neither necessary nor
sufficient.  Never mind that there's a non-problem in the mix too.)

• References:
  • Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Vocabulary Combination and optional namespaces
• Next by Date: Re: Choosing when to namespace (was Re: Vocabulary Combination)
• Previous by thread: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• Next by thread: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread