- From: Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:10:33 -0700
- To: Public Forms <public-forms@w3.org>
I hadn't even realized they were in a different namespace! So yes absolutely +1. The last thing we need is one more namespace. -Erik On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Nick Van den Bleeken <Nick.Van.den.Bleeken@inventivegroup.com> wrote: > All, > > Currently the XForms functions are in > the 'http://www.w3.org/2002/xforms-functions' namespace. I probably > suggested this a year ago or so. But I would propose the put the xforms > functions just in the XForms namespace (http://www.w3.org/2004/xforms/). > > My reasoning is: > > Less namespaces is simpler > some users already bind xf to the XForms NS, when they copy in an example of > an xfroms function call they probably will forget to change the function > prefix to something else and map the new prefix to the xforms function > namespace (it is also cumbersome, error prone, and confusing for some > people) > There is no technical limitation why the XForms functions can't be in the > XForms namespace > > > Could you please reply to this e-mail if you don't agree, we are going to > discuss this on next teleconf, but it is conceptually a big change! > > Kind regards, > > Nick Van den Bleeken > R&D Manager > > Phone: +32 3 425 41 02 > Office fax: +32 3 821 01 71 > nick.van.den.bleeken@inventivegroup.com > www.inventivedesigners.com > > > > ________________________________ > > Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer: > http://www.inventivedesigners.com/email-disclaimer
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 16:11:28 UTC