> James M Snell wrote: > > > > There is nothing in my proposed set of changes that would violate rule > #1. > > OK, then Sanjiva, what is your objection? > > - Sam Ruby
I'd like a bit of evidence beyond a declaration: James, why do you think that your changes would not make a valid DOM produce bad stuff? What about if someone's using the default namespace? Also, Sam, in general I don't support the principle of becoming bug compatible. I like your list BTW; its a concise summary of the problem. Sanjiva.
