DR-08-0012 Namespace Mapping Table v2

[Alex Brown]

Jirka hi

My understanding was that a consensus decision had already been taken to
change the Namespace Name for S. 

Do we have minutes for the last meeting?

> Transitional:
>  -- keep namespace
>  -- make it more close to ECMA OOXML (putting on/off values back,
> removing ISO dates, and so on)
> 
> Strict:
>  -- change namespace
>  -- make it really Strict (which means cutting off several
Transitional
> features like serial dates and probably more I haven't yet have time
to
> do detail study)

+1

This all sounds great to me. However, I see the Namespace change for S
as entirely consistent with this plan.

I intend to give a presentation in Copenhagen on this topic, and will
propose to the group that we need to establish some *principles* on the
relationship between T and S as a basis for our ongoing decision making.

I do not believe we should re-visit the Namespace issue. We owe CH a
response on their defect report, and I believe we owe it to ourselves to
make a decision and move on -- as issue such as this, we could debate
for ever.

- Alex.

--
Alex Brown
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 34 WG 1
Editor, ISO/IEC 19757-5 (Extensible Datatypes)