Greetings.
On 2010 Dec 3, at 04:53, James Clark wrote:
> I agree it was done rather hastily, but at the time (as far as I remember)
> there weren't many objections. It was not obvious how much pain they would
> cause.
>
> I think the problem was that we started off with some major assumptions,
> which we never really questioned:
I'd always had the impression (or guessed) that namespaces were partly there in order to bring into XML some of the power and obvious utility of architectural forms. As a matter of history, was that part of that particular zeitgeist?
[that's "power and obvious utility" in the sense of "this is so awesome that it's just _got_ to be majorly useful for situations like, ..., umm...; yes...")
Norman
--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
