Seairth Jacobs wrote:
> No, in this case, I am saying the primary vocabulary *never* uses
> namespaces, regardless of whether there are secondary vocabularies or not.
> This would mean that no change in code would be required to handle the
> primary vocabulary.
Only as long as the primary vocabulary is never embedded in another
vocabulary or any enveloping document with a default namespace.
> I agree that the "sometimes" approach is not good. But
> I do not see a need to namespace the primary vocabulary under any
> circumstances.
To enforce your rules, you need another rule - primary vocabularies
can never be embedded, even in other primary vocabularies. But to
paraphrase Meyer, real vocabularies have no top.
Bill de hÓra
