• To: The Deviants <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:35:51 -0500
• In-reply-to: <093701c1a9f2$71c37820$0a2e249b@n...>

1/30/2002 7:58:48 PM, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...> wrote:

>
>No seriously, the reason it doesn't matter is because XML Namespaces 
are a
>done deal. All this discussion would have been fine when the rec was 
under
>development,

I see some variant of Clean Namespaces as a potential usage guideline 
for a set of users that don't need the power (and hassles) of W3C 
Namespaces, not a counter-proposal to the standard.  I personally 
would disagree with using a ':' in a name except as a prefix 
delimiter.  As you say, that fails the IE5 test.  Case closed. 


> hardly anyone is working with DTDs?.

That is not my impression, FWIW.  "Out of fashion at the W3C" is not 
the same as "dead."

• References:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Previous by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread