• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 16:25:44 -0400

David Brownell wrote:
> 
> The current "10% solution" (three namespace URIs) is IMNSHO the wrong
> tack -- either don't address it at all, or hold out for a complete
> solution, but don't put something in that's widely perceived as broken
> and is universally acknowledged as incomplete!

I agree and I would feel the same about a single namespace. We don't
need no steekin namespaces (yet!).

 Paul Prescod

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • My ideal XHTML (if I were dictator)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • RE: why distinctions within XHTML?
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • Re: why distinctions within XHTML?
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why namespaces?
• Next by Date: dumb namespaces question
• Previous by thread: Re: why distinctions within XHTML?
• Next by thread: My ideal XHTML (if I were dictator)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread