- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:39:29 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 8:38 PM -0500 5/23/97, Andrew Layman wrote: >Oh. I agree that we don't want to preclude validation. Just that >validation and namespaces are separate issues. > >--Andrew Layman > AndrewL@microsoft.com As part of my review of namespace blather I came upon this anti-gem. Since validation is not possible in the presence of arbitrary included markup unless that markup is part of a DTD, the GI-hacking namespace proposals are all intimately related to the question of validation. Wishing will not make the problem go away, so we need to address it if we adopt any such proposal. If architectural forms meet the need, of course, these are all non-questions, or at best, possible improvements for some future xml 2.0 or 1.1 or whatever. -- David _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 1997 14:37:42 UTC