W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Namespaces are dead.

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 10:13:28 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990605101241.01614920@pop.intergate.bc.ca>
To: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@techno.com>, ricko@allette.com.au
Cc: xml-dev@ic.ac.uk, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
At 11:22 AM 6/5/99 -0500, Steven R. Newcomb wrote:
>I'm glad you brought this up, Rick, because I have never heard a good
>argument as to why architectural forms were rejected in the first
>place.  To me, it looks as though they were rejected simply because
>many RDBMS applications professionals don't yet think in
>object-oriented terms.  (But that's changing.)

Architectural forms were rejected because it was a design goal to
assign namespaces both to elements and to attributes, and the AF
syntax for doing with this attributes was felt to be indefensibly
hideous. 

As David Megginson has pointed out on several occasions, namespaces
solve an entirely different problem, and interoperate with AFs just
fine. -Tim
Received on Saturday, 5 June 1999 13:13:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:46 GMT