Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com>
- To: Rick Jelliffe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 10:44:06 -0700 (MST)
> I have just been re-reading the Namespaces spec very carefully, and the
> conclusion I come to is that (not including the annexes) it is actually an
> extremely well-written spec (not including the annexes).
I agree that it is a very well-written spec, although with a tad more
explanation in a few areas, James Clarke's excellent elucidation would not
have been required. But the writing quality is not the point.
> The problem is there is a need, and the namespaces spec is the last defined
> layered so people find themseleves at a dead with it.
Precisely. The matter could be addresed in an additional layer, or in
REC-xml-names. I'm neutral on that point. I only suggest modifying
REC-xml-names because I imagine it's the path of least effort.
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
email@example.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python