• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:16:12 -0700
• References: <RNIFYU4YOIWXRE9HNI1TIH4YA5NHMH.3d63b7ba@MChamp>

Mike Champion wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> I'm not sure what point I'm making here, other than maybe the various
> W3C WGs who took different approaches to the namespace problem weren't
> necessarily stupid, even if it looks like it in 20:20 hindsight :-)

Namespaces should never have been scoped. That's a big part of what
drove the implementation complexity up to such a large degree.
-- 
 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
  • Re: A multi-step approach on definingobject-orientednatureof DOM
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Next by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• Previous by thread: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• Next by thread: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread