DR-08-0012 Namespace Mapping Table v2

[Jirka Kosek]

Alex Brown wrote:

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

Yes, but my point is that if we say A (change namespace for S) we should
also say B (make another changes mentioned above which will justify
namespace change for S). If we can agree on that we want say A and B but
for procedural reasons we have to split changes to set of small changes
I'm entirely happy with this. But doing only A and then stopping really
doesn't make sense.

> 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.

+1

> 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.

I'm not in disagreement here. I'm just saying that CZ will support
change in namespace for S only if related changes I have mentioned in
previous email will be likely to accepted.

			Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka at kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20090522/d0ee15ec/attachment.pgp>