Re: [xml-dev] Should one adopt the tag naming convention of an existingX

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

Re: [xml-dev] Should one adopt the tag naming convention of an existingXML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:14:12 +0000

On 06/02/2012 23:32, Cox, Bruce wrote:

CF8C455705AFA345ABCC709D20C6E282D644350B06@EMAIL01.uspto.gov" type="cite">

To give an example, the patent business model has been very stable for about a hundred years. True, the vocabulary has changed

Really? As far as I can see, patents still use the word "plurality" as often as they can, and I still don't know if it means "one or more", "two or more", or "zero or more".

Michael Kay
Saxonica

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [xml-dev] Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
  - From: "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@USPTO.GOV>

References:
- Re: [xml-dev] Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
  - From: Greg Hunt <greg@firmansyah.com>
- RE: [xml-dev] Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
  - From: "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@USPTO.GOV>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]