• To: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:19:21 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3CAE0333.6AD97DC@r...>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEEAE4@HQ5><4.3.2.7.2.20020405081622.00b63c90@m...>

At 12:04 PM 4/5/2002 -0800, Ronald Bourret wrote:
>Ann Navarro wrote:
> >
> > At 03:57 PM 4/4/2002 -0800, Ronald Bourret wrote:
> > >But that's just it. Every system layer above them does depend on them.
> > >Adding them to the core is just formalizing the status quo.
> >
> > They do? I guess I better go tell my clients that their systems are broken,
> > and they don't even know it (not a one of them *depends* on namespaces)
>Just because you don't use namespaces doesn't
>mean they aren't there.

I won't argue that they're not there in an existential way, but that's not 
the same as saying *every system layer *depends* on them*

Ann
Ann Navarro, WebGeek Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com/
What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/	
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• References:
  • RE: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by Date: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Previous by thread: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by thread: RE: RE: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread