RE: RE: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML doesn't deserve its "X".)

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>]

What exactly was your original concern and how is it not solved by
xsi:type? 

-- 
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:mc@xegesis.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:48 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.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)" 
> <clbullar@ingr.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 
<http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>