• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>
• Date: 03 Feb 2002 22:42:38 +0100
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131141928.02821bc0@p...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@p...> <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@p...> <5.1.0.14.2.20020131141928.02821bc0@p...>

* Tim Bray
|
| If we had wanted to do namespaces on just elements, not attributes,
| I'm pretty sure we would have ended up with AFs or equivalent.

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| This I don't follow. How would you have gotten the processing
| semantics and resulting naming freedom by taking that approach?

* Tim Bray
| 
| Instead of <html:img xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/html4/" we
| would have <img xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/html4/"  

But you still have to call it 'img', don't you? There's no way you
could call it 'bilde' or 'figure', or did I miss something?
 
| Kind of nice I think.

With fixed attributes, yes. Without, absolutely not.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >

• Prev by Date: Garbage collection in DOM
• Next by Date: Re: "Smart ASCII" -> XML for authoring?
• Previous by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread