EM brouhaha

Hi Eliot, Everyone,

I wanted to apologize for stepping on your figurative toes today, 
Eliot. I never actually understood what the arguments were about. It 
always seemed to me that the issue was what we wanted to say about 
why we chose elementFormDefault="qualified." The fact that we did not 
have someone there to answer that question left open the door to all 
the arguments that erupted. That there was also no reference to where 
the question itself came from threw me. So I never properly 
understood why the arguments came about as they did in the first 
place.

I now have to apologize to everyone because I still didn't properly 
understand the actual issue and I went along with the decision to 
change the elementFormDefault="qualified" to 
elementFormDefault="unqualified"

So, now I have to change my mind publicly and say that I think it 
should stay "qualified" so that locally cited elements have to 
validate against the CAP Schema. I will save my arguments till Dec. 
30th. I am very sorry for my disruptions, and for the fact that I am 
now changing my mind. I will try to have a more coherent argument for 
my position, if it is needed, but I still don't think we should cite 
a reason for the choice in the spec itself. If you look at a lot of 
specs, they use "qualified" and don't say why. I'm willing to cite my 
own arguments, but I think it is a bad idea to put any argument in 
that part of the spec.

Also, if consensus is still in favor of "unqualified" I will just let 
it be. I'm not all that interested in pursuing this further.

Sheepishly,
Rex
-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: 
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request