• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• To: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
• Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:53:55 +0100

On 06/08/09 16:03, Liam Quin wrote:

> There are two different discussions -- how could namespaces have been
> designed differently, and, how can we improve the current mess.
> I admit I'm more interested in the second of these, and I believe
> (at least at the moment) that any improvement must retain compatibility
> (which Tim's proposal more or less does) --
> C1: all existing well-formed XML documents continue to be well-formed
>      under the "new" rules;
> C2: all "new" well-formed XML documents are also well-formed under
>      the existing ("old") rules and work in existing software.


Isn't that short of 'improving the current mess Liam'?
C1 and C2 (from my limited knowledge) seem good with Micahs ideas.

I was favouring your first option though, simply because of the current 
mess!





regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• References:
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@S...>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Micah Dubinko <Micah.Dubinko@m...>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@S...>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>