- From: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:20:53 -0400
- To: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>, Svgdeveloper@aol.com, xml-names-editor@w3.org, public-qt-comments@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
(sorry for the long cc list, I don't know who is reading which list) On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:37:00AM -0700, Andrew Layman wrote: > The namespaces 1.0 recommendation speaks of elements and attributes as > being qualified by a namespace identifier, but it very definitely does > not say that the only things that can be so qualified are elements and > attributes. This open-endedness is consistent with the broad principles > of extensibility that have motivated much of XML and it also reflects > current practice, as noted below. I agree with Andrew's comment. It's true that there are difficulties caused by the use of namespace prefixes within attribute values and within element content. The problems that these uses of namespaces are addressing are themselves not simple. As the XML family of specifications continues to evolve, we are starting to see patterns in the ways that namespaces and namespace prefixes are used, and perhaps in time we will find ways to extend XML namespaces more cleanly to information not directly held in individual Information Set Items. For now, if there are technical inconsistencies in the specifications, particularly specifications currently being worked on, the Working Groups concerned will certainly be interested in a clear and detailed explnanation of the problems, especially if possible solutions are offered! As Mike Kay said, though, it's too late to make people stop doing what they are already doing without providing an alternative mechanism. Best, Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, liam@w3.org, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 15:20:54 UTC