Re: PI target names unscoped -- why?

I am satisified with the wording of the 9/16 version; in fact, I think it
is an improvement. I would lose the word "such" in "If such a markup" but
consider that trivial and not worthy of delaying the release.
While there may be merit for changing this to a "goals" sections, the time 
has long past for such significant editorial changes.

Dave Hollander

> At 04:25 PM 8/16/98 +0700, James Clark wrote:
> >David Brownell wrote:
> >> The "motivation" (why not clearly defined "goals"?) in the XML
> >> namespace draft defines combining "markup from multiple independent
> >> sources" as needing namespace collision avoidance mechanisms.  The
> ...
> >I think the use of the word "markup" in section 1 is deeply confusing. 
> > I would suggest
> >something like:
> ...
> >"We envisage the use of XML documents that draw their element types and
> >attributes from multiple vocabularies (collections of element types and
> >attributes with defined semantics)
> 
> I think James is right and have made changes to this effect.  I have
> not, however, done away entirely with the word "markup", nor have I 
> introduced the notion of "vocabularies".
> 
>  -Tim
> 
>