• 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 22:11:56 -0500
• In-reply-to: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFIEBFENAA.danny666@v...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFIEBFENAA.danny666@v...>

On Saturday 26 January 2002 08:09 pm, Danny Ayers wrote:
> >I don't think the document is the place to specify the sets of
> >applicable semantics.
>
> By supplying namespaces, aren't you doing exactly that?

One reason why I vehemently dislike them.... they give people a sense 
of false security.

• 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: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • 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...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Next by Date: Web/HTTP History
• Previous 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)
• 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