Re: namespace qualifications

[Sjoerd Visscher <sjoerd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> This isn't just a theoretical concern. Assuming we stick with the 
> superstitious version attribute, I can see wanting to come up with my 
> own container for atom entries that was better or different in some way, 
> and creating a new element in a new namespace for it, say aaronsw:bowl. 
> But I might want to retain atom's versioning scheme so that an 
> aggregator that supported feeds and bowls would follow the same 
> versioning rules for each. That's currently impossible.

That wouldn't work automatically. (This isn't RDF, and even then...)
You'd have to explain (in english) what it means to use the attribute 
from Atom. Then you could just as well use an unqualified attribute, and 
explain that you're using the same versioning scheme as Atom.

--
Sjoerd Visscher
http://w3future.com/weblog/