On Tuesday, August 28, 2007, 6:23:01 PM, Jon wrote: JF> In answer to your question about whether anyone feels strongly JF> about the namespace issue, I feel strongly that any new grammar JF> defined by W3C should sit on top of a foundation of XML namespaces JF> and would recommend to my A/C rep to vote "no" against any JF> specifications that defined a new language that did not do so.
I agree with Jon. Furthermore, I note that the TAG does too - see WebArch: Good practice: Namespace adoption A specification that establishes an XML vocabulary SHOULD place all element names and global attribute names in a namespace. http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-namespaces JF> To me, it is glaringly obvious that a standards organization JF> should leverage whatever tools are available to ensure that the JF> technologies it defines are robust and extensible. In the realm of JF> angle-bracket markup languages, the relevant tools are XML JF> namespaces along with a proper schema definition using XML Schema JF> or RelaxNG. I agree that this (should be) obvious. Please put the widget xml in a namespace. A RelaxNG grammar for it would also be highly desirable. -- Chris Lilley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
