David Carlisle wrote: >> But David, you're _assuming_ XML rules for interpretting >> namespaces! :> > > yes but I was answering Bill Hammond's question about Of course, I understood. I was just taking the opportunity to tease, and also the opportunity to summarize (as I understand it) that we currently seem wedged between a desire to simplify (and avoid namespaces) and a desire for IE to work as is (w/o waiting \infty for IE8). ... I guess I'll take that as a further opportunity to reiterate that point :> >>> In application/xhtml+xml there seems to be more than one understanding... > so xml is implied here (despite the subject line) > >> While I certainly sympathize with Bill on wanting to >> have such nesting possibilities, I'm not fond of adding >> in little bits here & there. I'd much rather push for >> a proper solution at the level of compound documents. > > We're in total agreement here, although whether that's because we've > independently come to a naturally correct conclusion or if it's just > that we've both been fully absorbed into the collective group-think of > the working group, it's hard to tell... A third possibility is that I've simply come under the sway of your overwhelmingly domineering personality... (sorry, I'm in a kind of jokey mood today). -- bruce.miller@nist.gov http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/Received on Thursday, 12 October 2006 15:58:25 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 February 2008 03:23:18 GMT