- From: David Brownell <db@Eng.Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:24:39 -0700
- To: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
- CC: xml-names-issues@w3.org, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, David Brownell <db@argon.Eng.Sun.COM>
Dave Hollander wrote: > > I am satisified with the wording of the 9/16 version; in fact, I think it > is an improvement. I'd hope it would be ... but, that's two days away yet!! I'd be interested in getting a URL for a more current draft. By the way -- comment upcoming on "section 6", which has been queued for some time. - Dave > I would lose the word "such" in "If such a markup" but > consider that trivial and not worthy of delaying the release. > While there may be merit for changing this to a "goals" sections, the time > has long past for such significant editorial changes. > > Dave Hollander > > > At 04:25 PM 8/16/98 +0700, James Clark wrote: > > >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 > > ... > > >I think the use of the word "markup" in section 1 is deeply confusing. > > > I would suggest > > >something like: > > ... > > >"We envisage the use of XML documents that draw their element types and > > >attributes from multiple vocabularies (collections of element types and > > >attributes with defined semantics) > > > > I think James is right and have made changes to this effect. I have > > not, however, done away entirely with the word "markup", nor have I > > introduced the notion of "vocabularies". > > > > -Tim > > > >
Received on Monday, 14 September 1998 12:30:46 UTC