- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:28:03 -0600
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: "James A. Larson" <jim@larson-tech.com>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@east.sun.com>, Brad Porter <brad@tellme.com>, www-voice@w3.org
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 11:39 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote: [...] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-voicexml21-20040728/#sec-data-security > > Jim, et al., > > At my suggestion, the XML CG discussed this at our > meeting this week. I've also done some more research > on my own. Thanks, Paul. [...] > Regardless, neither I nor anyone on the XML CG expressing > an opinion in this matter can see any strong technical > argument against using a PI in this case. Hmm... it doesn't bother you that somebody might already be using <?access-control ... ?> for some other purpose? I think of PIs as kinda like comments... they belong to authors (or perhaps local communities), not to W3C. How should consumers figure out what specification applies to pi <?foo ?>? Should W3C start a registry of PI names? (heaven forbid!) Norm, didn't we establish a good practice in webarch that new markup should be namespace-qualified? Ah... I see we were more conservative... "A specification that establishes an XML vocabulary SHOULD place all element names and global attribute names in a namespace." http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#use-namespaces -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 17:28:16 UTC