Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal

-----Original Message-----
From: keshlam@us.ibm.com <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
To: XML-uri@w3.org <XML-uri@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal


>>However, it is a very wise architect who can forsee all uses of a
>>general technology so well in advance so as to be able to determine
>>what sort of features are unwise for all future applications.
>
>At this point, I think I have to remind folks that XML originated very
>specifically as a _reduction_ from SGML, based on the 90/10 rule. ("Handle
>the 90% most common use cases which can be addressed with 10% of the coding
>effort; ignore the remaining 10% which require the other 90% of the
>effort.")


There is a big difference.  The reduction from SGML to XML simplified it.
The proposal was, don't add extra baggage on in order to accomodate some
extra
request needed for only 10% of the documents. Indeed wise.

With namespaces and URIs, the simple option is to just quote the URI spec.
This disconnects all the design around URIs into a completely separate
set of specs.  From the XML spec point of view it is clean. The whole system
is cleanly modular.

To then add baggae such as "a URI *except* don't use this form or that form"
just so as to exclude cases you think people won't need is to complicate the
XML
spec.

It is like having a standard trailer hitch on the back of the car, but
adding
an ingenious device which protrudes backwards to prevent the trailer from
being
a boat trailer, on the basis that the chance of wanting to tow a boat is <
10%!

Tim

Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2000 16:14:44 UTC