- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:41:32 -0400
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: "Bassetti, Ann" <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>, public-xml-id@w3.org, "Bugbee, Larry" <larry.bugbee@boeing.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, "Reid, Travis S" <travis.s.reid@boeing.com>, "Gerstmann, Jerry P" <jerry.p.gerstmann@boeing.com>, "Meadows, Joe" <joe.meadows@nobs.ca.boeing.com>
Chris Lilley wrote: > I assumed you were meaning to replace namespaces in general, not just > replace namespaces in one special case with one attribute in the xml > namespace (or reserved naming partition or whatever the set of tokens > that matches xml and doesn't match xml: is called) I want to draw a line here between what has come before and what comes after. I don't think we're going to or should replace namespaces for all existing (or perhaps any exiting) specs. However, I see no reason to pollute future specs with systems we know to be broken. However, this is not just one special case. I think any future XML reserved attributes should also avoid the use of the xml: prefix and its associated problems. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 21:41:38 UTC