Re: Low-hanging fruit: compulsory namespaces

[Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>]

On Jul 13, 2004, at 3:44 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> +1.
>
> Do we want to replace this with something along the lines of "children 
> of atom:feed and atom:entry must be namespace-qualified?"

Sounds good, but of course it hasn't been discussed so we might be 
missing some obvious gotcha.  I'd put it in, on a trial-balloon basis. 
-Tim