Another look at namespaces

Ann Navarro ann at
Thu Sep 16 19:14:47 BST 1999

At 01:03 PM 9/16/99 -0400, Eve L. Maler wrote:
>Not to pick nits, but the August 29 statement just observed a correlation; 
>when I first read it, I didn't take it to be providing an actual reason for 
>the decision.  The "as direct a mapping as possible" language does indeed 
>give insight into the decision to go with a one-to-one DTD/NS mapping, 
>though I think that the confusion reigning about the purpose of NSs puts 
>the rationale on shaky foundations not of the WG's making.

I can see where that observation may have occured. 

However, I do feel that a relatively cursory glance at the actual documents
and Activity statement further solidify the charge to the WG of
transforming all of HTML 4.0 (three versions) into XML, which is what we did. 

I think it's a rather spurious suggestion that the entire discussion would
have been avoided 

> >This is a rationale. Including this with the recent draft
> >would have saved us all a lot of e-mail traffic.

had the statement been made in the manner that Tim did, only 3-4 weeks ago. 

The abstract seems to me to be very self explanatory: This specification
defines XHTML 1.0, a reformulation of HTML 4.0 as an XML 1.0 application,
and three DTDs corresponding to the ones defined by HTML 4.0. 

It still, however, doesn't definitely answer the namespace issue, though I
personally believe it supports it. 



Author of Effective Web Design: Master the Essentials
Coming in September --- Mastering XML

Founder, WebGeek Communications  
Vice President-Finance, HTML Writers Guild
Director, HWG Online Education   

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list