[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: EM brouhaha
Hi Eliot, Everyone, I wanted to apologize for stepping on your figurative toes today, Eliot. I never actually understood what the arguments were about. It always seemed to me that the issue was what we wanted to say about why we chose elementFormDefault="qualified." The fact that we did not have someone there to answer that question left open the door to all the arguments that erupted. That there was also no reference to where the question itself came from threw me. So I never properly understood why the arguments came about as they did in the first place. I now have to apologize to everyone because I still didn't properly understand the actual issue and I went along with the decision to change the elementFormDefault="qualified" to elementFormDefault="unqualified" So, now I have to change my mind publicly and say that I think it should stay "qualified" so that locally cited elements have to validate against the CAP Schema. I will save my arguments till Dec. 30th. I am very sorry for my disruptions, and for the fact that I am now changing my mind. I will try to have a more coherent argument for my position, if it is needed, but I still don't think we should cite a reason for the choice in the spec itself. If you look at a lot of specs, they use "qualified" and don't say why. I'm willing to cite my own arguments, but I think it is a bad idea to put any argument in that part of the spec. Also, if consensus is still in favor of "unqualified" I will just let it be. I'm not all that interested in pursuing this further. Sheepishly, Rex -- Rex Brooks GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com Email: rexb@starbourne.com Tel: 510-849-2309 Fax: By Request
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]