Phill wrote:
>...
> I do not think that we get enough out of the URI alone so
> yes, I think we
> should keep the major/minor version tags.
>...
Although it breaks the elegance of the purest of pure
intentions of namespaces, something like this is needed.
The namespace URIs many times become sacred untouchables
and therefore impede changes to specs for fear of
interoperability (rightly so). Isn't it so?
When I implement these fine XML standards, I often think
it'd be most excellent to have greater (optional)
granularity than the URI. I don't care much how, as long
as the mechanism is there somewhere.
-Hans Granqvist
Forwarded message 1
Phill wrote:
>...
> I do not think that we get enough out of the URI alone so
> yes, I think we
> should keep the major/minor version tags.
>...
Although it breaks the elegance of the purest of pure
intentions of namespaces, something like this is needed.
The namespace URIs many times become sacred untouchables
and therefore impede changes to specs for fear of
interoperability (rightly so). Isn't it so?
When I implement these fine XML standards, I often think
it'd be most excellent to have greater (optional)
granularity than the URI. I don't care much how, as long
as the mechanism is there somewhere.
-Hans Granqvist