- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: 2007年12月20日 13:11:02 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Max Voelkel <voelkel@fzi.de>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
- Message-ID: <476A69E6.3050008@hpl.hp.com>
Dan Brickley wrote: > Dan Brickley wrote: >> I'm afraid you're mistaken; we were amongst its first customers. This >> is documented even from the days before XML itself was finalised >> (although I've just failed to find the relevant links). There was in >> fact a big fuss about this about ten years ago, within W3C: XML didn't >> get frozen before it was clear that the basics were in place to build >> a namespaces mechanism (the full spec for which came later), for specs >> such as RDF to build upon. > ... [1] > which cites http://www.w3.org/Member/Meeting/98JanAC/xml-req.html Fascinating. But the PR that [1] argues against, went on to become the XML Rec, and according to the many signatories of [1], the extensibility mechanisms were inadequate, and XML did, in fact, get frozen. I can believe a version of the past in which the XML 1.1 mentioned in that doc morphed into XML Namespaces, ... but it doesn't achieve the extensibility requirements set out in [1]. Jeremy [1] http://www.w3.org/Member/Meeting/98JanAC/xml-req.html (member only)
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2007 13:11:40 UTC