David Carlisle wrote: > > (c) noone has disputed that the the two bats are distinct in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000May/0137.html > > No one? > > There is nothing special about that test case, it is just an example > using a relative URU. So presumably anyone who ever argued for the > literal interpretation (which isn't just me, no matter how much you > wished it were) must have argued that both uses were in the same "bat" > namepsace (and so the document authors should probably have used > better namespace names, such as absolute URI) Well... I was trying to avoid presuming or infering, having had little success with that lately. I now take it that you dispute that the two bats should be treated as distinct by XSLT implementations. Julian Reschke and Simon St.Laurent also spoke up, but I can't quite tell if they meant to say "I disagree that XSLT implementations should treat the bats as distinct." -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2000 09:08:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:17:25 GMT