Re: Revised namespaceState-48 finding (16 Dec 2005) from Anne van Kesteren on 2005-12-16 (www-tag@w3.org from December 2005)

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:14:12 +0100
To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s1v7tywe64w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:07:15 +0100, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>  
wrote:
> Per my action from the 13 Dec 2005 TAG telcon, please find a revised
> finding on the issue of namespaceState-48 at
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState-2005-12-16.html

Why did xml:id provide the answer rather than xml:base? I've followed/read  
the discussion regarding xml:id, but xml:base was clearly released a lot  
earlier and showed that xml: could be extended.

(Should the document mention that you can not change the xml: prefix?)

Cheers,

Anne

-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 20:14:23 UTC