W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-issues@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: PI target names unscoped -- why?

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:04:54 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: db@argon.Eng.Sun.COM (David Brownell), xml-names-issues@w3.org
At 12:49 AM 8/16/98 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
>The "motivation" (why not clearly defined "goals"?) in the XML
>namespace draft defines combining "markup from multiple independent
>sources" as needing namespace collision avoidance mechanisms.  The
>XML specification defines markup (2.4, first para) as including
>entity references, DTDs, and PIs ... but the XML namespace draft
>neither addresses such markup, nor justifies why that markup should
>be unprotected.

I am in the progress of doing a (with luck nearly final) revision of
the namespace draft.  I just finished reading this, and David has
a point, but I tried a couple of different alternate wordings and they
got seroiusly in the way of the flow.  The fact of the matter is that for
now, we're just doing elements and attributes; I don't think the
explanation of this choice adds much value to the spec.  My co-editors
or the XML IG may choose to disagree. -Tim
Received on Thursday, 10 September 1998 23:04:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:38 UTC