• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Namespaces alternative? (was Re:WD for Namespaces 1.1)
• From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>
• Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:34:47 -0400
• References: <003101c1dce4$31a42620$6400a8c0@seairthlaptop>
• Reply-to: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>

Hmm... Despite what I thought was a serious challenge to namespaces, not a
single person had any comments on it (not even Len).  Does this mean that
the idea is so wrong-headed that it isn't worth discussing?  Is what I said
just not understandable?  I am amazed that such a vocal group has absolutely
nothing to say on the topic...

---
Seairth Jacobs
seairth@s...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Namespaces alternative? (was Re:WD for Namespaces 1.1)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Namespaces alternative? (was Re:WD for Namespaces 1.1)
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by Date: RE: UDDI, RDF, semweb?
• Previous by thread: Namespaces alternative? (was Re:WD for Namespaces 1.1)
• Next by thread: Re: Namespaces alternative? (was Re:WD for Namespaces 1.1)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread