Why do we write standards?

[Len Bullard]

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 
> We've got the core set.  Why not let users experiment with that basic set
> of tools before we try to slap them in straitjackets?  I hear people on
> this list insisting on the need for constraints, for fixed structures, for
> all that stuff that made sense when computers were (relatively) slow and
> stupid and data structures were hard to convert from one form to another.

Make schemas time-dynamic systems and enable the namespace to 
reflect that volatility and variant.  Shouldn't be that hard if 
you agree that registries are just records of authority and that 
a given ROA can be said to dominate discourse within the process 
space.

The reason I originally suggested using a time model from 
a music standard for enterprise management is that it contains 
an asynchronous model of gestures for synchronizing a performance.  
The most obvious problem of XML-centric, namespace authorities is 
the same as any other set of related standards:  discovering 
redundancy and differentiating it from overlapping dimensional 
members.

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)