• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: Re: Are the publishing users happy? Why not?
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:40:39 +0000
• Cc: 'Bill de hOra' <bill@d...>, Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>, xml-dev@l...
• Organization: Propylon
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACF4B@h...>
• Reply-to: bill.dehora@p...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Sure, but if you get the namespace support from 
> the tool for free, why resort to the period hack 
> (well known from the old Oster system)?

Because the namespace is a worse hack? In the initial example, the 
information is being carried in the namespace /prefix/, not the 
namespace /URI/. Problem being that NS prefixes are fairly 
incidental creatures. With the prefix hack, the information re nikon 
ceases to be incidental and can't be lost (probably not without 
breaking the document).

Bill de hÓra

• References:
  • RE: Re: Are the publishing users happy? Why not?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Are the publishing users happy? Why not?
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Are the publishing users happy? Why not?
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Are the publishing users happy? Why not?
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Are the publishing users happy? Why not?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread