RE: more grist

[Leigh Dodds <ldodds@ingenta.com>]

> 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?" [1]

If this stuff isn't central to getting immediate 
benefits, then lets label it as such.

We want a shallow incline, not a cliff.

[1]. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/10/11/deviant/index.html

Cheers,

L.

-- 
Leigh Dodds, Systems Architect       | "Pluralitas non est ponenda
http://weblogs.userland.com/eclectic |    sine necessitate"
http://www.xml.com/pub/xmldeviant    |     -- William of Ockham