• To: 'Dare Obasanjo' <dareo@m...>, Aaron Skonnard <aarons@d...>, John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:34:30 -0500
• Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...

First, the relationship between a namespace name 
and the implementing semantic must be made clear 
instead of silent.  Implementors must not be surprised 
that if the namespace is changed, some code starts 
to fail.

len

From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...]

I'm not sure what you expect from the W3C if you don't point to some consensus. Saying everyone has issues with the Namespaces in XML recommendation and its side effects doesn't a plan of action make. It's not like they can say, "Oops we made a boo boo, throw out all your code and applications that use Namespaces because we've come up with W3C XML Disambiguators or something"

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature of DOM
• Next by Date: RE: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
• Previous by thread: RE: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
• Next by thread: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread