XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

[Len Bullard]

Paul Prescod wrote:
>
> Put it this way: if something technical truly is common sense then it
> must be simple. If it is simple it is simple to make a specification for
> it. So why not engage in that simple exercise to protect ourselves from
> lock-in?

Lock in is not as much an issue (it is a market phenomenon that is hard
to 
avoid).   

The issue is the record of authority to be cited when specifying 
and procuring systems.  The record of authority is itself, a namespace
and 
must be rational with respect to resolving referenced.   It was an issue
with 
specifying SGML systems, as noted in another thread:  even with a
tighter 
standard, we needed conformance tests to procure systems that were used 
at larger scales of production.  This is the same for XML, namespaces, 
etc.  We must enable professionals whose jobs are aligned with ours to 
contract for systems and products of these systems without having to 
be deeply aware of the technical details.

len


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