Bill, I agree on the first point, but I'm not sure I understnd why it's relevant. Regarding the second point, in the end it's not likely to matter much whether it's one namespace or two. I just tend towards favoring the less annoying of the two options... it's one more namespace I need to know about.
Either way, still just a minor issue ;-) - James Bill de hÓra wrote: > > On the plus side, I can see how it's annoying, but I'm -1 on this. > > 1. the pub:control element strikes me as both unstable and innovative - > ie I'll be a monkey's uncle if it doesn't get embraced and extended. if > it doesn't exist people won't key off it, they'll invent their own > stuff. Document management types are notorious for imposed fine grained > but essentially private business processes in formats. Having it there > means somebody has to justify why some private extension that ultimately > locks in client software is being proposed. > > 2. starting with two namespaces from day will help educated developers > on the extensibility issues.* You can interpret this as social > engineering, but it would be unkind. > > cheers > Bill > > * aside: something I learned from versioning formats. If you intend to > have versions then you must ship with two versions; it's the only way to > tease out the issues and stop implementors inserting frozen accidents > into the network. Extensions have similar dynamics. > > James M Snell wrote: >> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceUseOneNamespace >>
