Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Reason and example arguing for the use of an ODF (or XML) canonical form

From
Dave Pawson <>
Date
2008-07-11T05:28:58+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Reason and example arguing for the use of an ODF (or XML) canonical form
2008/7/11 Peter Dolding <>:

> Next is a non Wild West Method.  You can still create what ever
> foreign keys you like.  Only limit needed added to 1.5 you must
> register them with a central body with a complete description.

> Compared to current setup where there is no compatibility bar reversed
> created unless a party decides to be nice and document.  Central body
> wins every time.
>
> Getting the non Wild West Method keys is not a long process.

It's not proved workable Peter IMHO. People don't like central registries?
It's been tried for many reasons, namespaces was the answer in W3C
(bad one, but a workable answer)

For extensions I favour the requirement that when a user invokes a feature
which creates an extension, he/she is warned about it?
"Hey, this will extend the standard" or something.
That way you know what you're doing? No excuses. Sometimes the feature
will be needed, but it's a user choice. No more vendor lock-in by the back door.

regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk