W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2004

RE: ACTION NW 2004/05/14: Propose text on tradeoffs for section 4 .2.2.

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:15:22 -0500
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F99D@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: 'Norman Walsh' <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

As we go, it is also the first question to ask of the browser: what 
namespaces do you support composably as a replacement for sniffing 
the vendor and version.

Sort of a regress to the days of looking for NOTATION decls.

len

From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
Norman Walsh

Well, a vocabulary that never gets processed probably isn't very
useful. I see your point that it's a processing issue, but it's also
true that if you want to enable low(er)-cost extensibility, that's a
goal that will have an impact on your language design.
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 14:15:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:26 GMT