http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2957 ------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2006-09-29 02:08 ------- We don't seem to have an immediate use for them (unless we wish to replace 'absent' type definitions with xsd:untypedAny and xsd:untypedAtomic). So I propose that we inform QT that we don't plan to mention them, giving QT the opportunity to explain to us that we should, and why, and how. Or alternatively we might add a Note to the section that introduces the namespaces (the same place we added the note on the relation between the 1.0 and 1.1 namespaces), saying that there are some other things in the namespace, defined by the QT specs. And (as a matter of namespace policy) there might be more in the future.Received on Friday, 29 September 2006 02:08:26 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:13:40 GMT