[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-comment] Proposed resolution to public comment #10
"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 06/30/2008 11:13:33 AM: > 2008/6/30 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>: > > +1 [;<). - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200806/msg00065.html > > From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:40 > > To: office@lists.oasis-open.org; office-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: [office-comment] Proposed resolution to public comment #10 > > > > > > I proposed that this be replaced by: > > > > "Table 1 lists the namespace prefixes this specification uses when > > referring to elements and attributes in the various ODF namespaces. > > Conforming ODF documents may substitute other namespace prefixes, bound to > > the listed namespace URN's, in accordance with the Namespaces in XML > > specification [xml-names]." > > > > > Perhaps add a requirement for namespace well-formed as per > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/#Conformance > I'm thinking that the phrase "in accordance with the Namespaces in XML specification..." would cover that. Would stating it as "in conformance with..." be clearer? -Rob
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]