Subject: [Bug 17] XML NS terminology

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:20:31 -0700

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17

[email-masked] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2005-10-15 16:20 -------
Done for -08.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:37:04 +0200

[email-masked] wrote:
> ...

For the record, the change is:

Section 8., para. 61:
OLD:

     This example also demonstrates the use of XML namespace scoping and
     the default namespace.  Since the "xmlns" attribute does not contain
     a prefix, the namespace applies by default to all enclosed elements.
     Hence, all elements which do not explicitly state the namespace to
     which they belong are members of the "DAV:" namespace schema.

NEW:

     This example also demonstrates the use of XML namespace scoping and
     the default namespace.  Since the "xmlns" attribute does not contain
     a prefix, the namespace applies by default to all enclosed elements.
     Hence, all elements which do not explicitly state the namespace to
     which they belong are members of the "DAV:" namespace.

...and I'm happy with this resolution.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Elias Sinderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:21:03 -0700

I am okay with the change, below.

Best,
Elias

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:43:16 -0800

>>     which they belong are members of the "DAV:" namespace.

Uh, I'm probably blind, but what is the difference from the old to the new?

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:57:46 +0100

> Uh, I'm probably blind, but what is the difference from the old to the new?

Last sentence, last word.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:44:39 -0800

> Last sentence, last word.

Gotit - thanks - I looked at that about 10 times before I sent my email.