Article:		XML Namespaces Don't Need URIs
Subject:		Updated namespace URIs "likely"?
Date:		2005-04-15 20:33:26
From:		mikeday
Response to: Updated namespace URIs "likely"?
Hi Jelks, Thanks for picking that up! It seems that I have misunderestimated the ingenuity of the HTML working group. It is amusing to note that the example XHTML 2.0 document given in the Conformance Definition would be a perfectly valid XHTML 1.0 document also, if it wasn't for the different namespace. Truly an odd decision. But then again, mandating an xsi:schemaLocation on the root element is also very odd, given that XHTML 2.0 is supposed to be extensible, which would argue against a fixed schema. However, I would argue that the dates in the namespace URIs are still unnecessary, as the XHTML 1.0 namespace has "xhtml" while the XHTML 2.0 namespace has "xhtml2". These are sufficiently different without adding dates as well. Best regards, Michael

Previous Message

Up

Next Message