Re: ACTION NW 2004/05/14: Propose text on tradeoffs for section 4.2.2.

/ Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> was heard to say:
| At 10:34 AM -0400 6/28/04, Norman Walsh wrote:
|
|>It follows that there are significant tradeoffs to be considered when
|>deciding on a namespace change policy. If your existing vocabulary has
|>no extensibility points (if it does not allow elements or attributes
|>>From foreign namespaces or have a mechanism for dealing with
|>unrecognized names from the same namespace), it may be absolutely
|>necessary to change the namespace name.
|
| This is an issue for processing software, not for the XML vocabulary
| itself. No XML vocabulary needs a mechanism for dealing with
| unrecognized names. The problem would only be in software that reads
| the vocabulary.

Well, a vocabulary that never gets processed probably isn't very
useful. I see your point that it's a processing issue, but it's also
true that if you want to enable low(er)-cost extensibility, that's a
goal that will have an impact on your language design.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.