[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Seairth Jacobs wrote:
>>Removing an external requirement/dependency should be a *good* thing here.
>
>
> Well, while Namespaces-1.1 may be strongly tied to XML-1.1, it is not
> necessarily true the other way around. If Namespaces were to be rolled into
> XML, then Namespaces would have to be implemented along with XML just to be
> able to say that a product is XML-1.1 compliant.
I think that there are two different discussions here :=) ...
Bundling XML 1.1 and Namespaces in XML 1.1 in a single recommendation is
IMO more like a packaging than a technical issue.
Requiring that documents valid per XML 1.1 should also be valid per
namespaces in XML 1.1 is another (different story) which doesn't require
the two specs to be merged.
In other words, it is possible to keep those two specs separed and write
in XML 1.1 that to be conform to XML 1.1 a document must also be conform
to namespaces in XML 1.1 and it is also possible to merge the two specs
and to explain that a document has two level of compliance (compliant
with XML 1.1 "basic" and compliant with XML 1.1 "namespaced").
The two issues seem relatively independent to me!
Eric
> ---
> Seairth Jacobs
> seairth@seairth.com
>
--
See you in Barcelona.
http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/schedule.asp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
