RE: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 from Henrik Frystyk Nielsen on 2002-10-18 (xml-dist-app@w3.org from October 2002)

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:51:17 -0700
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5C39F806F9939046B4B1AFE652500A3A034B2B15@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

>>  Using a
>> qualified name could also be seen as being more consistent with out 
>> treatment of header blocks.
>>
>I don't follow you, can you explain ?

It's that we base "understanding" of a header block on the qualified
name. By doing the same for the envelope so that "understanding" the
envelope is also based on a qualified name seems consistent.

Henrik

Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 13:51:48 UTC