Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Mike Champion" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: RE: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:31:40 -0800
- Thread-index: AcHEhylZ3hC5dW67RtO9oy5DZ3hVcgABelmg
- Thread-topic: RE: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
What exactly was your original concern and how is it not solved by
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #230
I will not procrastinate regarding any ritual granting immortality.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Champion [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:48 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: RE: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev]
> XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
> 3/5/2002 3:37:12 PM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Ummm... what's the difference in in-bandness in
> >the instance vs just requiring a schema of some kind to
> >travel with the document, other than that puts one back
> >in SGMLLand pretty solidly?
> Hmmm ... interesting point. Having a travelling schema
> would address my original concern.
> >We do seem to work a lot to preserve well-formed options.
> Well, well-formedness brought us to the party, IMHO. We
> would be a lonely group of SGMLers whining about the
> incompatibilities between Word and HTML, and CORBA and DCOM,
> and wishing that the world would just take a sip of our
> KoolAid -- XML would have never "taken off" without the WF
> "foot in the door." I suspect you disagree :~)
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription