Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> Concrete shoes might be a good idea for URIs...
>
> But as for concrete proposals, see:
> http://monasticxml.org/namespaces.html
Not bad at all, the whole series, bypass the introductory rants and
there's not much to disagree with in the technical recommendations.
BTW, the referenced page has one error: there is no ambiguity at all
about what namespace an unprefixed attribute is in; it's not in any
namespace under any circumstances.
I personally think this was a design error, but we should either fix it
(unlikely now, though I'd support an effort) or live with it. The
document's recommendation to "treat unqualified attributes as being in
the namespace of the element that contains them" is just wrong, will
lead to poor interoperability, and should not be followed). -Tim
