Frank Meies wrote:
> >So I maintain that, for being implementable with reasonable effort,
> >via a non-xml-based representation, the generic ct is heavily
> >under-constrained. :)
>
> Well, yes, that's what I also asked for in one of my first mails
> (see http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office-collab/email/archives/201101/msg00002.html).
>
Hi Frank,
well yeah, indirectly - of course, the need of constraining the
generic ct so much could kill most of the elegance of that proposal,
so I wonder if it's the right tool for this job.
I.e. it seems likely we would end up with something like the
extended ct, but expressed by means of the generic ct markup. ;)
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
