> 2. I suggest that discussion is limited to *implementing* or *exploring*
> the Namespace proposal. The XML spec refers (I think) to "namespace
> experiments" and I think that this is the approach we should take - i.e.
> discuss experiments with *this* namespace proposal.
I think to this point we have met the first part of this guideline at
least -- the discussion has focussed very closely on implementation
issues, and as implementors we have been discussing general approaches
broadly (i.e. namespaces, architectural forms, and subdocuments)
rather than dealing with details of a specific proposal.
In fact, architectural forms and subdocuments do not require any
proposal at all -- the already exist, and can be used with the current
XML spec.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson ak117@freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins@microstar.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)