• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:44:04 +0000
• In-reply-to: <010701c21380$1a771a70$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• References: <200206140340.XAA23990@m...> <3D09A3D0.9C3F0FAF@s...> <010701c21380$1a771a70$4bc8a8c0@A...>

"Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...> wrote:

| But this is discussing techniques before requirements.  

Which is exactly how this namespace bogosity came about.  Are people now
entitled to claim precedent?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• References:
  • Re: [dsdl-comment] DSDL: use cases: namespace declaration notation
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: [dsdl-comment] Re: DSDL: use cases: namespace declaration notation
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
  • DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Next by Date: Re: [dsdl-comment] Re: DSDL: use cases: namespace declaration notation
• Previous by thread: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed
• Next by thread: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread