[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: more grist
- From: Leigh Dodds <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>,Ben Trafford <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:35:37 +0000
> Is Rick J. right? Do it but don't call it XML?
> Does that 'renaming' save us anything but
> admitting we need something like groves and
> grove plans? In my opinion, once you take
> away lexical unification (same syntax),
> by definition, by Draconian rule, it quits
> being XML.
I think these are fair points. After all its not
so long since we were asking "How much does
a developer need to know before they can
do useful work with XML?" 
If this stuff isn't central to getting immediate
benefits, then lets label it as such.
We want a shallow incline, not a cliff.
Leigh Dodds, Systems Architect | "Pluralitas non est ponenda
http://weblogs.userland.com/eclectic | sine necessitate"
http://www.xml.com/pub/xmldeviant | -- William of Ockham