W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

RE: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 10:21:22 -0500
Message-ID: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B63B@HQ5>
To: "'Patrick Stickler'" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, ext Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, WWW TAG <www-tag@w3.org>

If there is a history of making short-term decisions 
that later have to be reversed or extended to cope, 
then perhaps the lesson learned is to slow down on 
this one, which appears to be quite fundamental, and 
consider it carefully. 

This is perhaps why the original authors of the 
XML Namespaces specification punted the question 
away into 'silence' and are now comfortable with 
changing that to "SHOULD" as a minimal approach 
to getting documents for namespaces integrated 
into documents that use them.   I'm not sure 
why that is needed given a history of working 
with data dictionaries, but then, I don't exchange 
those blindly (in fact, we restrict their dissemination 
by rigorous means) or information based on them.

Dependencies such as the one you have noted may 
be just one.  Are there others?

I am satisfied that my concerns are to be met 
elsewhere.  RDF isn't one of them, so I leave 
this to the architects.  Thanks to all for 
considering these concerns, though.

len


From: Patrick Stickler [mailto:patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

On 2002-07-03 17:56, "ext Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
wrote:

> ... and the question
> is, does the decision to insist on dereferencing
> make that easier or harder.

Easier for some in the short term, harder for most
over the long term, IMMHO.
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 11:22:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:09 GMT