W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-issues@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: PI target names unscoped -- why?

From: David Brownell <db@Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:24:39 -0700
Message-ID: <35FD4347.E1715D4C@eng.sun.com>
To: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
CC: xml-names-issues@w3.org, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, David Brownell <db@argon.Eng.Sun.COM>
Dave Hollander wrote:
> 
> I am satisified with the wording of the 9/16 version; in fact, I think it
> is an improvement.

I'd hope it would be ... but, that's two days away yet!!   I'd be
interested in getting a URL for a more current draft.

By the way -- comment upcoming on "section 6", which has been queued
for some time.

- Dave


>	 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
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 14 September 1998 12:30:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:30 UTC