• To: "'John Cowan'" <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
• From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>
• Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:45:34 -0600
• Cc: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <200208291737.NAA29800@m...>

John Cowan wrote:

> Yes, indeed.  But there seems to be no consensus on what is to be
done.
> "Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about
> it."

IIRC there have been several concrete proposals around things that could
be done. The one that I've made several times is to remove default
namespaces.

I could dig up many other namespace-related proposals in the archives.
I'm curious, what does it take for the WG to consider revisions to the
specification? (I'd sincerely like to know)

-aaron

...................................................
Aaron Skonnard, DevelopMentor (http://skonnard.com)
Essential XML Quick Reference now available online!
          http://www.develop.com/books
..................................................

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
• 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: Re: linking, 80/20]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread