• From: james anderson <James.Anderson@m...>
• To: "xml-dev@i..." <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:08:20 +0100

Ronald Bourret wrote:
> 
> Nope -- no ignorance at all.  This is very definitely the problem
> namespaces were meant to address.  It's just that the original reaction of
> many people to the namespaces spec is that it somehow solves the "automagic
> combination" and "'valid' against multiple DTDs" problems as well.  (Put
> another way, you can get lunch, but it's not free.)

how about this for a synopsys: it guarantees you your own seat at the bar, but
you still going to have to be old enough to drink.


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: Compound Documents - necessary for success?
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rbourret@i...>

• Prev by Date: Stripping leading and trailing spaces???
• Next by Date: 5.3 and Appendix A contradiction [Re: Another errata?]
• Previous by thread: RE: Compound Documents - necessary for success?
• Next by thread: RE: Compound Documents - necessary for success?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread