• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:03:33 -0700

At 11:46 AM 31/08/01 -0700, Fuchs, Matthew wrote:
>  While "put everything
>in a namespace" was reasonable best practice before the arrival of XSDL, the
>concretization of a notion of "local elements" (I hesitate to call it
>"formalization") - just as the Namespaces rec concretized the notion of
>"global attribute", which hadn't existed syntactically before, although
>people used them - can change what best practices can be.  And best
>practices for local elements is unqualified.

Despite having Matt has argued this position at length, consensus
has not emerged.  In discussing this issue in future, I will be
careful to point out that there are those who, unlike me, regard
unqualified local elements as a good idea.  I hope that people who 
share Matt's viewpoint will be equally careful to point out that 
their views are not universal.  -Tim

• References:
  • RE: infinite depth to namespaces
    • From: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Suggested guidelines for using local types. (was Re: Enlightenmentvia avoiding the T-word)
• Next by Date: RE: The tragedy of the commons
• Previous by thread: Re: infinite depth to namespaces
• Next by thread: RE: infinite depth to namespaces
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread