MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: EM brouhaha
Hi Eliot, Everyone,
I wanted to apologize for stepping on your figurative toes today,
Eliot. I never actually understood what the arguments were about. It
always seemed to me that the issue was what we wanted to say about
why we chose elementFormDefault="qualified." The fact that we did not
have someone there to answer that question left open the door to all
the arguments that erupted. That there was also no reference to where
the question itself came from threw me. So I never properly
understood why the arguments came about as they did in the first
place.
I now have to apologize to everyone because I still didn't properly
understand the actual issue and I went along with the decision to
change the elementFormDefault="qualified" to
elementFormDefault="unqualified"
So, now I have to change my mind publicly and say that I think it
should stay "qualified" so that locally cited elements have to
validate against the CAP Schema. I will save my arguments till Dec.
30th. I am very sorry for my disruptions, and for the fact that I am
now changing my mind. I will try to have a more coherent argument for
my position, if it is needed, but I still don't think we should cite
a reason for the choice in the spec itself. If you look at a lot of
specs, they use "qualified" and don't say why. I'm willing to cite my
own arguments, but I think it is a bad idea to put any argument in
that part of the spec.
Also, if consensus is still in favor of "unqualified" I will just let
it be. I'm not all that interested in pursuing this further.
Sheepishly,
Rex
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]