The Peace Process: DOM and namespaces...

Rick Ross rick at
Thu Feb 11 16:21:15 GMT 1999

In truth, I do not want to engage contention or be argumentative - I simply
want a solution that doesn't involve postponing the development of
significant business by as much as a half-year or more.

One thing that happens all too often in listserv discussions is that people
"take positions" - I am not doing this - I am looking for a solution to a
real, present-tense business problem.

If everyone who wanted to use C++ had been told to wait for a solution until
the standard was finalized, then that would have led to years and years of
delay. There are real, valid arguments for making "tuning" decisions along
the way to make important business benefits possible.

I would hope that the working groups, the entities that sponsor them, and
the community of developers who desire to leverage this technology can see
the powerful value of small compromise now to make productive business
possible today.

"Wait until it is final" is very, very difficult to swallow - especially
since there could be lots of pitfalls and speedbumps in the road ahead. A
simple change makes more, valuable business possible now.

Again, I am not looking to confront, but rather to plead that this is
important. The "deferral" approach favors the big companies who can always
play the long-term game, they have the resources to do that. Innovation,
however, may often come from the newcomer or the little guy, and we all
benefit from inovation becoming real sooner...


Tim Bray wrote:
> At 09:06 AM 2/11/99 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
> >Rick Ross writes:
> >
> > > Tim Bray noted that perhaps the best solution here is to urge that
> > > support for namespaces in XSL be deferred until the next phase
> >
> >Did Tim say this?  I'll have to let him clarify whether he agrees with
> >it or not
> I said it was a consistent course of action.  I don't agree with it.
> Rick's problem is that he wants to implement XSL (not stable yet)
> with DOM 1.0, which doesn't have everything you need to do it.  My
> contention is that since XSL 1.0 and DOM level 2 will arrive at more
> or less the same time, it's reasonable for XSL to depend on things
> in DOM level 2.  Rick, it seems, would like XSL to throw out
> everything that can't be supported with XML 1.0 and DOM level 1,
> because he wants a conformant application of an unfinished spec
> and he wants it now.  -Tim

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list