[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Parts and assemblies: it's in the way that you use it.
But any tweaking of the alphabet has serious implications
to that framework. How long (John Cowan>?) has our
standard western alphabet had 26 regular characters?
The dictionary changes all the time. So perhaps XML
remains important and for those who want to play
above that level, so does SGML.
Can one easily make XML less important? Why is XML 2.0 a low
probability event? To make it a high probability event,
XML has to struggle to overcome its own success or do exactly
what Tim et al suggested and go forward only by taking
pieces out. On the other hand, some assemblies could come
unglued and that will be painful without planning.
This is the flaw of extreme programming: they may actually believe
the simple thing will work and hold one to it.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@netfolder.com]
What's important is no longer XML per se but what we do with it.
|
