Alexey Melnikov writes:
> If we want to allow for magic comments, it make sense for them to be
> in a separate namespace. But then magic comments are typically
> implementation specific. So I unless we want to startadize them, I
> don't think the document needs another namespace.
Each generator may want to use a namespace of its own for its particular
foo. I am not an expert in this. If that's considered good XML taste,
then that should be illustrated in an example or two.
I certainly want to allow that - indeed, I don't know of a way to disallow it.
But I don't want to require this approach.
It also occurs to me that as a practical matter, a lot of Sieve generators
produce what amounts to a list of rules. (Our implementation works this way.)
Perhaps an example of a "rule list" sieve done first with the built in
annotation capabilities and then again using the separate namespace approach
would be helpful. Thoughts?
Ned