[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

• To: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>,"Richard Tobin" <richard@c...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:26:21 -0700
• Thread-index: AcI5mXYkOcJIYrITSk2QLlTVbBrKMgAACdMQ
• Thread-topic: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Skonnard [mailto:aarons@d...] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:24 PM
> To: 'Richard Tobin'; xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE:  Re: URIs, concrete (was Re:  
> Un-ask the
> 
> I don't see this as a best-practice. Everyone seems to agree 
> that you probably want to avoid situations where a local 
> (unqualified) and global
> (qualified) attribute might be used on the same element - 
> that's the best practice imo. Saying you're always going to 
> give them the same interpretation defeats the purpose of 
> namespaces and just confuses those that already understand 
> how they work.


<me-too>I agree with Aaron</me-too>

-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Chances are that the gift needing returning will be the one missing the
receipt.  

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 

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