[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1

• To: "'jim@a...'" <jim@a...>, Marcus Carr <mcarr@a...>
• Subject: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:20:04 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

What is the problem with keeping them in a separate 
spec?  What is the advantage of rolling them in?
Those who want them supported do; those who don't 
aren't bothered by them.

Namespaces are a system feature.  They shouldn't 
be in the core any more than XML Schema support 
shouldn't be in the core and XSLT shouldn't be 
in the core.  They are framework components.

What needs to be fixed as Mike points out are 
the other specifications that all treat the 
infoset differently.  That is the mess.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Ancona [mailto:scarhill@y...]

--- Marcus Carr <mcarr@a...> wrote:
> If an organisation needed to provide v1.1 data, they will likely need to
> convert their DTD to a schema, as I doubt if v1.1 processors would support
> DTDs. 

I haven't seen any indication that DTDs would be removed from the XML 1.1 spec,
have you? Assuming they remain, any parser that didn't support them wouldn't be
an XML parser. Perhaps you mean that most XML 1.1 parsers would be
non-validating? I suppose that's possible, but it doesn't sound likely, or like
a good reason not to roll namespeces into the XML 1.1 spec.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespaces in XML 1.1 Requirements
• Next by Date: Re: XML compatibility with SGML (was Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1)
• Previous by thread: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread