Comments on: There is no XML without namespaces http://faganm.com/blog/2006/01/17/761/ Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:21:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Aristotle Pagaltzis http://faganm.com/blog/2006/01/17/761/#comment-162 Aristotle Pagaltzis Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:19:42 +0000 http://www.faganfinder.com/wp/2006/01/17/761/#comment-162 <p>And they <em>are</em> getting fixed. I got notifications from a couple of developers that they have committed pertinent patches. Overall, while I am still dismayed that so many people got it wrong even nowadays, I’ve been pleasantly surprised to witness it being accepted as needing correction without much quibbling. People just got on the case; that is heartening. </p> And they are getting fixed. I got notifications from a couple of developers that they have committed pertinent patches. Overall, while I am still dismayed that so many people got it wrong even nowadays, I’ve been pleasantly surprised to witness it being accepted as needing correction without much quibbling. People just got on the case; that is heartening.

]]> By: DeWitt Clinton http://faganm.com/blog/2006/01/17/761/#comment-160 DeWitt Clinton Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:33:06 +0000 http://www.faganfinder.com/wp/2006/01/17/761/#comment-160 <p>Well said.</p> <p>And to hammer home the point — the “X” in “XML” stands for “eXtensible”. Without the namespaces you don’t really get extensibility. </p> Well said.

And to hammer home the point — the “X” in “XML” stands for “eXtensible”. Without the namespaces you don’t really get extensibility.

]]>