• To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:12:55 -0700
• Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,"Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>,"XML DEV" <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcI5epXI009OJPjsQ+eh8Qy5SX/UpAADFN/g
• Thread-topic: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 9:46 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: Simon St.Laurent; Tim Bray; XML DEV
> Subject: Re:  Re: URIs, concrete (was Re:  
> Un-ask the question)
> 
> > <myns:Parent name="must be a number between 1 - 100"><myns:Child 
> > name="can be any string"/></myns:Parent>
> >  
> > or creating global attributes that represent the same idea 
> regardless 
> > of what element they appear on
> >  
> > <myns:Parent myns:id="must be unique in document"><myns:Child 
> > myns:id="must be unique in document"><></myns:Parent>
> 
> 
> How would this distinction (which is old hat and agreed upon 
> by *everyone* in 
> this discussion) be impaired by the specification that 
> unprefixed attributes 
> are in their element's namespace?

Bah. I've forgotten why I thought it did. If it isn't obvious to you as
well then I'll humbly retract my argument. 

-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Chances are that the gift needing returning will be the one missing the
receipt.  

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 

• Prev by Date: RE: Trust
• Next by Date: Re: Use of "ANY"
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: RE: Use of "ANY"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread