- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:52:21 -0400
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Friday, Oct 18, 2002, at 13:51 US/Eastern, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > >>> Using a >>> qualified name could also be seen as being more consistent with out >>> treatment of header blocks. >>> >> I don't follow you, can you explain ? > > It's that we base "understanding" of a header block on the qualified > name. By doing the same for the envelope so that "understanding" the > envelope is also based on a qualified name seems consistent. > Ah OK, I see. The symmetry of this is certainly attractive, but I think we are talking about different things and shouldn't be led astray by aesthetics. If you wanted to version a header block would you (i) just change the localname to something new or (ii) change the namespace and possibly also the localname ? My instinct would be for (ii). Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 14:52:47 UTC