On Feb 4, 2008 5:08 PM, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/4/08 1:25 PM, "Martin McEvoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Actually, I've found it quite useful. Manu has brought up several points > > that I've been concerned about. I've almost chimed in a couple of times > > but Manu has beaten me to it and I've been reluctant to just post "me > > too" :-) > > > > Just because one person doesn't find a long and interesting thread > > productive doesn't mean it isn't productive for others. > > That may be true, however, we decided long ago, that this wasn't a good > forum for having such discussions about namespaces - there are other forums > where you may find more others that find long discussions about namespaces > interesting. > > http://microformats.org/wiki/mailing-lists#bad-topic-namespaces >
(Much of) the discussion isn't about that kind of namespaces. It's about trying to clarify how the word used on the Wiki (in a very specific sense) has a more broadly accepted meaning that differs in important ways. The fact that "no namespaces" dogma makes little sense to people familiar with the general meaning suggests that clarification is important. Manu's post with references to the various meanings is probably something that should go up on the wiki. It's a productive contribution to the issue and a demonstration that dogmas should occasionally be pulled out from their glass case and given a good shaking. -cks -- Christopher St. John http://artofsystems.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
