Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Winchel 'Todd' Vincent, III" <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:23:44 -0400
> > Namespaces are NAME spaces. That's all. Folks read all sorts of other
> > implications into namespaces, and everyone has their own ideas about
> > they want to do with namespaces, but namespaces themselves (a) are just
> > naming and (b) make no particular effort to be compatable with DTD
> > validation. There was a fairly explicit assumption that if you were
> > Namespaces, you would either work with well-formed documents or with a
> > namespace-aware schema language, _NOT_ with DTDs.
> Can one find that "fairly explicit assumption" in any W3C document? If
> which one, and precisely where?
In no way do I mean to "pile-on" but, along these same lines . . . Norman
said today . . .
> Right. Sorry. This technique only works if all the DTDs in question
> have the "namespace hack" so that, from my example, DocBook elements
> are all in the DocBook namespace and HTML elements are all in the HTML
> If the DTDs don't have the namespace hack, mixing them just isn't
It would be nice if someone could draft a "Namespace Hack 1.0" specification
and append it to (or even display it prominently on) the current W3C
Namespace 1.0 specification. There are a variety of *non-standard* ways we
can all dream up to make this work. The point of the W3C and standards is
just that -- *standards* -- so we know how to communicate with each other on
the Internet. That's all I'm after.