• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Managing Innovation
• From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>
• Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:40:14 -0400
• In-reply-to: <1065129219.3933.11.camel@z...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9ED39@h...><1065129219.3933.11.camel@z...>
• Sender: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>

Rick Marshall writes:

 > that's what ibm said 20 years ago and every design since has had to
 > cope with 640k base memory ranges and other "that'll be more than
 > enough" decisions.

I understand that argument well, but in this case, we're not talking
about limiting the overall length of XML documents.  Let's try not to
imagine only the present, but the future as well -- can anyone make a
reasonable case for an XML element or attribute name longer than 4096
characters (for example)?


All the best,


David

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Managing Innovation
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • RE: Managing Innovation
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • RE: Managing Innovation
    • From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>

• References:
  • RE: Managing Innovation
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • RE: Managing Innovation
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Managing Innovation
• Next by Date: RE: Managing Innovation
• Previous by thread: RE: Managing Innovation
• Next by thread: RE: Managing Innovation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread