- From: Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, xml-uri@w3.org
--- "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:
> > > At 10:39 AM 6/2/00 -0700, Sam Hunting wrote:
> > > It is, however, permitted by the XML 1.0 spec, at least in its
> > > current incarnation.
> >
> >Presumably, since it would be "immoral" (in John Cowan's useful
> >formulation) to break existing documents, no future incarnation of
> >XML will require namespace qualified names?
>
> I'm not sure that will actually be such a problem, because having no
> namespace is legitimate in the world described by Namespaces in XML,
> and because the version number would likely change were such a
drastic
> move to be made.
True, but -- "legitimate" (a) in the current version of the Namespaces
Spec, and (b) assuming there's no other "black box" process that
over-rides that legitimacy.
As I understand the principle, whatever breaks existing documents is
immoral. This applies whether the version number increments or not.
S.
=====
<? "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations ?>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
Received on Friday, 2 June 2000 14:12:25 UTC