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

RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1

• To: <james.anderson@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:46:24 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3CB3FB29.E8FEB2A3@s...>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

Michael Kay:
> And I have yet to see a
> > proposal that cleans up the namespace model without
> breaking applications that work today according to the current specs.
>
James Anderson:

> To the extent that an application expects a prefix-namespace binding
> which was apparent in the dynamic context of a given document's parser
> to have indefinite extent, the application is already broken.
>
Sorry, but we're on a different wavelength. I don't see how you can describe
an application that uses facilities defined in the current W3C
specifications (facilities that were put there deliberately and that are
implemented uninformly in a dozen products) and that uses these facilities
as they were designed to be used, as "broken".

We can regret the fact that it was specified it that way (that's what I mean
by hindsight), but we can't pretend that it wasn't.

Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@n...
work: Michael.Kay@s...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
  • Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• References:
  • Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• Prev by Date: laxly schema valid
• Next by Date: RE: XML from java
• Previous by thread: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread