- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 10:21:22 -0500
- 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 UTC