[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Tim Bray <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:14:05 -0500
It offsets the web brain damage revealed by comments like:
>I apologise due to my Dev Knowledge being of the M$ type.
or the telling gaps in the XML design demonstrated by
>Or we are already developing an incompatible document context for XML.
and the deeply insightful
>I suspect this is why Len feels that this is an
>SGML problem - the easiest way for the parser to keep pace is to be
>with a map of characters at processing time.
which as you said, is alright with you.
And after the schema vs schemata debate, I thought absurdity
OTOH, I stand by the comment below. For the
long haul, SGML is a safer better bet. Safety and convenience
are sometimes uncomfortable bedfellows as anyone who keeps
secure data on a Palm unit they leave at the airport finds out.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Tim Bray [mailto:email@example.com]
At 08:17 AM 11/07/01 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>XML is designed for a short haul timespan.
>When you want to design for the long haul,
>go back to the SGML parent and work from
Len's a person who usually combines reasonable comments
with amusing, well-crafted, rhetoric. I'm not sure why
he's veering into this kind of flamebait these days. -Tim