On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:53 PM, James Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Michael Kay <> wrote:
>
> Namespaces are bad because they were done hastily without taking time to
>> consider the consequences (or rather, without listening to the many people
>> who were pointing out the consequences). They were a cheap hack, implemented
>> at the wrong layer of the architecture, and without thinking carefully about
>> the data model.
>>
>
> I agree it was done rather hastily, but at the time (as far as I remember)
> there weren't many objections. It was not obvious how much pain they would
> cause.
Hmmm. I can remember some very *strenuous* objections, most of which boiled down to that they were neither sufficient *or* necessary, and that they would complicate things. My memory is that they were a pet project and essentially forced on everyone, despite protestations.
