On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 01:27:07PM +0100, Wolfgang Mueller wrote:
> >
> > I think we're risking breaking the 'names should reflect what the
> > module does not how it does it rule'.
> >
> > On reflection I think a DTD, or similar, namespace is risky.
> > I think we'd be better off *ignoring* the u
>
> I think we're risking breaking the 'names should reflect what the
> module does not how it does it rule'.
>
> On reflection I think a DTD, or similar, namespace is risky.
> I think we'd be better off *ignoring* the use of XML in the
> implementation (where possible) and just considering the ab
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 10:28:59AM +0100, Wolfgang Mueller wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 November 2001 02:24, Kurt D. Starsinic wrote:
> > On Nov 13, Wolfgang Mueller wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > This is a followup to the MRML top level name space discussion.
> > >
> > > I think that's it. Why not create a D
On Wednesday 14 November 2001 02:24, Kurt D. Starsinic wrote:
> On Nov 13, Wolfgang Mueller wrote:
> > Hi,
> > This is a followup to the MRML top level name space discussion.
> >
> > I think that's it. Why not create a DTD top level namespace for all
> > modules that provide essentially routines f
On Nov 13, Wolfgang Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
> This is a followup to the MRML top level name space discussion.
>
> I think that's it. Why not create a DTD top level namespace for all modules
> that provide essentially routines for treating a DTD? We still can do
> something special for the "bigger"
