Hi Ned,
--On January 7, 2009 11:38:02 AM -0800 Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
wrote:
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?
Could this be done in an Appendix that lists some current common practice
with sieve scripts and how that might be re-worked for XML? I don't think
it needs to be part of the main body of the spec.
--
Cyrus Daboo