On 2/25/04 2:32 PM, "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> 
>> I posit that the lack of namespaces was not in small part responsible for
>> this success. That is to say, I would guess that every namespace added to
>> a language will dramatically reduce it's ease of use for authors. I know
> 
> I'd agree.

I would too.

>  I refer to this effect as "single technology solutions".

This is a common misconception.  There is a difference between:

1. "single technology solutions"
2. "seamless multiple technology solutions"
3. "clumsy multiple technology solutions"

I agree that new technologies that require (i.e. non-optional) use of a new
namespaces fall into category 3.

> EcmaScript, DOMs, and CSS are seen
> as part of HTML in popular culture,

And are a great example of category 2 above, not 1.

> and can be included in the same
> file,

Ease of integration is certainly one axis to evaluate how "seamless" a
multiple technology solution is.

Tantek