RE: ANN: SAX Filters for Namespace Processing

[Leigh Dodds <ldodds@ingenta.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Cleary [mailto:davec@progress.com]
> Sent: 03 August 2001 16:22
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: ANN: SAX Filters for Namespace Processing
>
>
> > Still doesn't answer the question of why the "elementFormDefault"
> > attribute defaults to "unqualified" though does it?
>
> When we discussed changing it after CR, concensus could not be reach on
> changing it. Since rules require 2/3rds to change something that is status
> quo, it was like overiding a veto. Some argued the original
> decission was a mistake, but there wasn't enough votes to change it.

OK, thats the *procedural* reason why default is as it is.

But what's the design decision? IOW, what thinking lead to the
'original decision' that failed to be overturned?

There's also an implication in what write that obviously opinions changed
at some point (although not *enough* opinions). Can you elaborate on
any of the technical reasons why these opinions changed?

Seems to me like the crux of this (and some many other specification
related)
debates could be reached if the original design decisions was understood.
In that way we can all understand the arguments, and derive our own
idea of best practices. (E.g. "Well that doesn't apply in my environment,
so I'll do it this way, rather than that way").

Although I fear that the answer will be: I couldn't possibly comment.

Cheers,

L.


--
Leigh Dodds, Systems Architect       | "Pluralitas non est ponenda
http://weblogs.userland.com/eclectic |    sine necessitate"
http://www.xml.com/pub/xmldeviant    |     -- William of Ockham