xml-dev - Re: [xml-dev] xml-utterly-practical (was RE: [xml-dev] Advice: inline no

Re: [xml-dev] xml-utterly-practical (was RE: [xml-dev] Advice: inline no

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] xml-utterly-practical (was RE: [xml-dev] Advice: inline node editing, or not?)
From: ari@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (K. Ari Krupnikov)
Date: 24 Jul 2003 18:37:31 -0700
In-reply-to: <16160.6972.413482.611740@megginson.com>
References: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPOEEGDHAA.danny666@virgilio.it><048c01c35167$8474bbf0$1401a8c0@snobird><16160.6972.413482.611740@megginson.com>
Sender: ari@lib.aero
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

David Megginson <david@megginson.com> writes:

> I doubt that an xml-phi list would prove all that popular, though,
> since the philosophers need an audience other than each-other.

Being a member of that audience is what makes a subscription
worthwhile for me.

Ari.

References:
- xml-utterly-practical (was RE: [xml-dev] Advice: inline node editing, or not?)
  - From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Re: [xml-dev] xml-utterly-practical (was RE: [xml-dev] Advice: inline node editing, or not?)
  - From: "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com>
- Re: [xml-dev] xml-utterly-practical (was RE: [xml-dev] Advice: inline node editing, or not?)
  - From: David Megginson <david@megginson.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [xml-dev] Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
Next by Date: Re: [xml-dev] Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
Previous by thread: Re: [xml-dev] xml-utterly-practical (was RE: [xml-dev] Advice: inline node editing, or not?)
Next by thread: Re: [xml-dev] Advice: inline node editing, or not?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread