I continue to feel strongly that the class attribute should be
associated with it's own namespace as discussed in my latest post in the
Namespace resolution thread.
I think that requiring just this one namespace is consistent with all of
the 1.0 goals Erik outlined.
I would like to see namespaces associated with packages--I don't see
must risk here and it's the only way so far identified to handle package
name conflicts, but I think we could endure not doing them in 1.0.
I do not see a need to do any namespace qualification of element type
names and attributes (other than the class attribute) in the working
DTDs and schemas.
Cheers,
E.
--
W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
9390 Research Blvd, #410
Austin, TX 78759
(512) 372-8122
www.innodata-isogen.com
