[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: xml-dev <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Co-operating with Architectural Forms
- From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>
- Date: 03 Feb 2002 22:42:38 +0100
- In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131141928.02821bc0@pop.intergate.ca>
- References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@pop.intergate.ca> <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@pop.intergate.ca> <5.1.0.14.2.20020131141928.02821bc0@pop.intergate.ca>
* Tim Bray
|
| If we had wanted to do namespaces on just elements, not attributes,
| I'm pretty sure we would have ended up with AFs or equivalent.
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| This I don't follow. How would you have gotten the processing
| semantics and resulting naming freedom by taking that approach?
* Tim Bray
|
| Instead of <html:img xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/html4/"; we
| would have <img xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/html4/";
But you still have to call it 'img', don't you? There's no way you
could call it 'bilde' or 'figure', or did I miss something?
| Kind of nice I think.
With fixed attributes, yes. Without, absolutely not.
--
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
|
