Update per current state of RFCs and spec.

Author: smizell

text/0000-refract-1.0.md

@@ -25,16 +25,16 @@ In addition to moving to 1.0.0, we need to actually start versioning namespace d
 
 **Proposal**: Start versioning current and future namespaces and move each namespace to their own repo. We can do this immediately.
 
-## Namespace Functionality
+## [Resolved] Namespace Functionality
+
+**This has been resolved by [RFC 0011](https://github.com/refractproject/rfcs/blob/master/text/0011-remove-namespacing.md)**
 
 The one area of Refract that we have not implemented in our implementations is namespaces. Currently, the design of namespaces mimics that of XML, but the way we have implemented it does not follow. In Refract, each element can have its own lexically-scoped elements as defined in its own namespace. This allows for namespaces to be defined and used deep within a data structure.
 
 Our implementations have diverted from this concept, and are rather relying on the document itself to define the elements includes. We still have namespaces, but the namespaces are not scoped within elements inside the document and are not explicitly defined in the documents.
 
 In order to get to 1.0.0, we need to think about whether we want to leave these kinds of things in the spec and change to them, or if we want to align the spec with what we've practically done.
 
-**Proposal**: Consider removing ability for namespaces to be lexically scoped on each element and make namespaces rather document-defined as we've done in our implementations.
-
 ## Separating Out Serialization Formats
 
 An important concept of Refract is that it is a model for representing data structures and is not a JSON format. With that said, we do have two current formats as defined in the spec, and all examples in the spec use one of these formats.