• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: David Megginson <david@m...>, XMLDev list <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:45:12 -0800

At 08:21 AM 12/20/99 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
>> - a pure namespaces view
>> - a simultaneous namespaces and XML 1.0 view
>> - a pure XML 1.0 view
>
>I agree -- I think that this is the cleanest approach.

I have a great deal of trouble imagining a situation in which the 
"simultaneous" view is desirable or even safe.  Could someone help out
with a use-case please?

If I'm right, then given that SAX1 already does the pure XML1.0 view, why do 
we need more than one view? -Tim

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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe 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:
  • Re: SAX2: Namespace proposal
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: SAX2: Namespace proposal
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX2: Namespace proposal
• Next by Date: RE: SAX2: Namespace proposal
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX2: Namespace proposal
• Next by thread: Re: SAX2: Namespace proposal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread