Re: A little courtesy, please

> How may I, without violating civility, indicate that this is not
> universally regarded as an unmixed blessing?  Actually, Simon's approach is
> clean in this regard because the actual damage is when namespaced names are
> used to control styling directly off the syntactic analysis, with a
> guaranteed non-dependence on any sort of schema backing up the names in the
> namespace.  This is likely to adversely affect the disability interest.
> The architecture should, to the best advantage of the disability interest,
> direct styling to the "highest available infoset" for its input, and not
> hardwire it to the lower-layer outcome of syntactic processing alone.

Sorry, you lost me, could you expand that.

I _think_ that you are saying that you would have prefered the namespace
rec to have mandated the existence of (something) as a retrievable
resource located at the namespace URI.

I am sure that that much of a change is too much of a change to be
considered, but forgetting that for a moment, I am interested in
why you say that this would be better for disability interest.

I more or less understand the last sentence quoted above as saying that
you need flexibility in styling possibilities, but I am missing
something that you have in mind as I don't see any connection between
that and whether there is a retrievable resource at the namespace URI.

Confused

David