Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > No, the HTML WG has to come up with a mechanism that the > rest of the > > community is happy with (or at least, is prepared to live with). If > > they fail to do so, they will fail. > > Eh?? The XML community cannot pretend to be or speak for the > HTML community. There is no push to change namespaces except > for HTML by the HTML WG. My reading of this conversation was that there is some deep-rooted unease about namespaces within the XML community, and a feeling that the HTML WGs problems are not unique to HTML and might be the stimulus for improvements at the XML level that would benefit everyone. > > I think the key issue is non-distruptiveness. The XML side > won't accept something that is too disruptive on balance Agreed. My suggestion of a "vocabulary definition" used to resolve undeclared prefixes and unprefixed element names was designed with that in mind. It would accept the current XML syntax and deliver the current infoset. > > (My own opinion is that this is all a side-effect of the > W3C's intense desire to avoid anything like a long-term plan > or a co-ordinated strategy. W3C does not have intense desires. It's a collection of a lot of people with different intense desires, working within processes that give each of them a voice. Regards, Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ http://twitter.com/michaelhkay
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
