- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:36:16 +0200
- To: james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de>
- Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
james anderson wrote: > On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 15:23 Europe/Berlin, Robin Berjon wrote: >> The qnameAsId-18 states that "using the in-scope namespace bindings >> has the advantage that it theoretically allows a generic processor to >> interpret QNames in content without having to be aware of any >> application-specific mechanisms". >> >> That, unfortunately, is very theoretical. > > it may be insufficiently specified, but it is neither theoretical nor > hypothetical. the namespaces recommendation specifies two scoping rules, > those referred to below as the "attributes rule" and the "element > rule". The finding states that a generic processor may interpret QiC without application-specific mechanisms. If it doesn't know which of the attribute or element rules was used, that ability of generic processors is very much theoretical. > there is no need for a decision as to which is the best option. I never said that. Only that at the least specification writers ought to be aware of which rules they want to see applied, instead of the "just use QiC" hand-waving one sees. That is all. > why does one mode need to be "the" mode? On a global scale, no; within a spec, yes. And there is a need for guidelines to help people chose wisely. -- Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr> Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
Received on Sunday, 17 August 2003 12:36:27 UTC