• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: [xml-dev ] There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:30:53 -0500
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF630E@HQ5>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF630E@HQ5>

On Friday 25 January 2002 03:22 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> You go a bit further and require multiple semantics and that
> the instance should be able to tell the system which semantics
> it can be used with.

Some people would claim that this is what namespaces do.

I don't think the document is the place to specify the sets of 
applicable semantics. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: [xml-dev ] There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by Date: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by thread: RE: Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: [xml-dev ] There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread