- From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:38:20 -0400
- To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- cc: David Hunter <david.hunter@mobileQ.COM>, "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
>As a compromise, it was agreed that namespace names *as such* didn't need >to be dereferenceable. However, many upcoming specs do define them to >point to something. Many upcoming specs need to define them as _associated_ with something. That pointing action need not be done by the namespace name itself. >> [S]ome very sloppy work went on in >> crafting the spec, since it doesn't say what they >> wanted it to say. > >On this I think that all can agree. Hindsight is 20:20. The downside of development cycles measured in web-years is that you don't have as much time to think about implications and side effects.
Received on Friday, 19 May 2000 14:39:30 UTC