Re: uri-comp draft necessary?

Paul Prescod wrote,
> Everyone agrees we don't want to go there. Let's not go there. Next
> issue?

If we end up in a situation where we're saying that one or other of,

  <ns:foo xmlns:ns="http://www.example.com/blah/" />

and,

  <ns:foo xmlns:ns="http://WWW.EXAMPLE.COM/blah/" />

is frowned on (which one, I wonder, and why?) then we're going there 
willy nilly.

That's where this alleged "best practice" leads.

Cheers,


Miles