Re: [xtm-wg] New file uploaded to xtm-wg

[Dave Pawson <daveP@dpawson.freeserve.co.uk>]

At 08:15 PM 10/9/00, you wrote:
> > > So my -$0.02 is, I'm of two minds. (1) I agree with Murray that
> > > namespaces are confusing, but also feel (2) that it might be a good
> > > thing to stake out, as it were, the real estate. No matter that the
> > > "xtm" prefix is arbitrary, and the URI is truly important, etc., as
> > > soon as software is in place that does processing based on the
> > prefix,
> > > the URI has less meaning.
>
> > What is it that you think we should _do_? Stake out the territory? In
> > my
> > DTD I have an "unused default" of 'xtm', which approaches a grubstake
> > but doesn't actually put up a flag.

xml-dev recent posts implied that namespaces are becoming somewhat 
necessary, and are supported well with recent rec implementations,
I'd support the inclusion, simply, at the top level element,
then we can mix vocabularies freely.

I'd like to be able to disambiguate xtm:topic from the same
element in another schema.

Regards DaveP




-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get free updates on your stocks from any phone with Tellme!
Click here and you can even personalize these quotes.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9536/4/_/337252/_/971154854/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com