W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:52:21 -0400
Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <BBE67183-E2CA-11D6-9506-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Friday, Oct 18, 2002, at 13:51 US/Eastern, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
>>>  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 

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 Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 14:52:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:21 UTC