Comments on: There is no XML without namespaces http://faganm.com/blog/2006/01/17/761/ The personal weblog of Michael Fagan Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:06:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5 by: DeWitt Clinton http://faganm.com/blog/2006/01/17/761/#comment-160 Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:33:06 -0800 http://faganm.com/blog/2006/01/17/761/#comment-160 <p>Well said.</p> <p>And to hammer home the point &#8212; the &#8220;X&#8221; in &#8220;XML&#8221; stands for &#8220;eXtensible&#8221;. Without the namespaces you don&#8217;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.

]]> by: Aristotle Pagaltzis http://faganm.com/blog/2006/01/17/761/#comment-162 Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:19:42 -0800 http://faganm.com/blog/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.

]]>