• From: "Hunter, David" <dhunter@M...>
• To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 17:53:12 -0400

> From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 4:26 PM
> 
> 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!).

I agree as well.  While I feel that having a single universal XHTML
namespace is a really good thing, it isn't actually needed until XHTML can
be mixed with other XML vocabularies, so I'd be more than happy to leave it
out until such time as that's feasible.

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...)

• Prev by Date: dumb namespaces question
• Next by Date: Re: dumb namespaces question
• Previous by thread: RE: why distinctions within XHTML?
• Next by thread: RE: why distinctions within XHTML?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread