[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Begging the Question
> I have just been re-reading the Namespaces spec very carefully, and the > conclusion I come to is that (not including the annexes) it is actually an > extremely well-written spec (not including the annexes). I agree that it is a very well-written spec, although with a tad more explanation in a few areas, James Clarke's excellent elucidation would not have been required. But the writing quality is not the point. > The problem is there is a need, and the namespaces spec is the last defined > layered so people find themseleves at a dead with it. Precisely. The matter could be addresed in an additional layer, or in REC-xml-names. I'm neutral on that point. I only suggest modifying REC-xml-names because I imagine it's the path of least effort. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@f... +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|