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

Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)

• To: jenglish@f...
• Subject: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:46:53 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200208020144.g721iV302017@d...> (message fromJoe English on Thu, 01 Aug 2002 18:44:31 -0700)
• References: <200208012354.AAA08692@n...> <E17aOQ3-0004sw-00@m...> <200208020144.g721iV302017@d...>

> That's entirely true.  However, after re-re-reading [XMLNS]
> A.1 "The Insufficiency of the Traditional Namespace" and
> A.2 "XML Namespace Partitions" several times, I'm coming
> to the conclusion that this entire section is essentially
> meaningless.

Yes the appendices of the namespace spec account for much of the
confusion surrounding xml namespaces I think. The spec would be 
a whole lot better if theu were deleted.

David


_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: wrong Sean was RE: Markup perspective not code (wasRE: Re: URIs, concrete)
• Next by Date: Re: Markup perspective not code (wasRE: Re: URIs, concrete)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask thequestion)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread