• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: linking, 80/20
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:33:46 -0700
• In-reply-to: <p04330100b98585120ac0@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020818100859.00bb5c90@m...><3D5EB23A.F74BA6F7@p...><4.3.2.7.2.20020818100859.00bb5c90@m...>

At 01:09 PM 8/18/2002 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>At 10:13 AM -0700 8/18/02, Ann Navarro wrote:
>
>
>>Funny thing about the three-namespaces battle is that another WG (SVG?) 
>>went off and did what we proposed back then, and either a) nobody 
>>noticed, or b) nobody complained.
>
>Really? Where? I just checked and SVG 1.0, SVG 1.1, SVG Tiny, and SVG 
>Mobile all seem to be using the same namesapce: http://www.w3.org/2000/svg

The question mark in (SVG?) was that I wasn't positive it was them, I'll 
dig around as a have time to find the Rec in which this came up.

Ann

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• References:
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Schema: At Least One of X Elements Must Appear
• Next by Date: Re: XLink olden days
• Previous by thread: Re: linking, 80/20
• Next by thread: Re: linking, 80/20
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread