Re: Revised namespaceState-48 finding (16 Dec 2005)

/ Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> was heard to say:
| 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.

Yes, that's probably worth mentioning. In fact, the xml:id example is
used because it's the one people noticed. The addition of xml:base
went by without a peep on this subject (AFAIR).

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

Uhm. It could, but that's well specified already in the namespaces Rec.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.