DR-08-0012 Namespace Mapping Table v2

[Rick Jelliffe]

Alex Brown wrote:
> Besides, for people working with IS29500 at the XML level, I'm not so
> sure, these days, that a different Namespace is quite such an obstacle:
> DSRL adapters and XProc steps can make short work of such differences. 
>   
Imaginary software can indeed solve all our problems!
> I do not believe NBs have a problem with MS sticking to T (so long as it
> accurately reflects the "pre-existing corpus"). I think what NBs had a
> problem with was publishing T as an IS, because of its design quirks --
> and S was, to some degree, the NBs expressing this by expressing what
> they thought the format *should have* been (rather than what it was).
>   
The BRM voted for a "transitional" class that is a superset of ECMA 
367-1, and a "strict"
class that is a superset of the transitional.  So an application that 
implemented the transitional
schema could process both ECMA 367-1 and IS29500-strict documents 
(raggedy differences
aside.)   And so that, even outside conformance, the same application 
could make a good
stab at handling both files.

The current direction being suggested turns that on its head, it seems 
to me.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe