- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:21:31 -0700
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: xml-names-editor@w3.org, annevk@opera.com, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Henry S. Thompson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > This is a vexed question. A quick look at your document suggest some > pretty good wording, e.g. > > "The prefix of a qualified name may be omitted to indicate that the > name belongs to no namespace." > > That's exactly right, and doesn't seem awkward. It takes several rewrites before my sentences are no longer awkward. > Could you give some examples of wording you're not so happy with? "When a CSS qualified name is used in a context (such as Selectors [SELECT]) that does not recognize association with the empty string namespace and lack of a namespace as two distinct, valid possibilities, prefixes representing the empty string namespace and no namespace must be treated as equivalent." And that used to be much more awkward the first 5-8 times I tried to write it. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 16:22:16 UTC