- From: Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:46:43 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@taxonomystrategies.com>
- Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Ron Daniel wrote: > > Thank you for your comments on the xmlns() scheme Last Call draft, > which are archived at: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2002JulSep/0039.html. > > The XML Linking Working Group has collected all the comments on > the documents and decided what changes to make to the draft. The > dispositions of your comments are given below. Please reply to > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org within one week if you wish to > make a formal objection to these decisions. The only point where you disagreed with me was this: > > "If a pointer part defines a binding for a namespace prefix that > > already has an entry in the namespace binding context, the new > > entry overrides the old one." > > This sentence should be moved to section 3.4 of the Framework spec. > > Not done. This is not a constraint on the namespace binding context, > but a description of the behavior of how the xmlns() scheme interacts > with it. A different scheme might behave differently. Okay. (I had thought there was a logical problem if one scheme said "new overrides old" and another said "old overrides new" and then you used them in the same xpointer. But I've changed my mind: the semantics of that situation are well-defined.) So: no objections. -Michael Dyck
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 12:10:57 UTC