On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:15:40 +0100, Christof Hoeke <csad7@t-online.de> wrote: > It is much clearer now, just one small point. I am not sure if it would > clarify it a bit more if one could add something like (I guess there is > a better wording though): > > ... that the namespace name part of the expanded name > has no value or is the empty string. > > Somehow if I read "no value" I think it has to be ``null`` or ``None`` > but not "". The empty string is just a syntactic detail in some serializations. We should not introduce that into namespace definitions. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 22:33:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 11 September 2008 23:29:04 GMT