• From: "Reynolds, Gregg" <greynolds@d...>
• To: "'david@m...'" <david@m...>, XML Dev <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:41:29 -0600

I would agree we shouldn't be too harsh on the standard as written; the
W3C intentionally does things fast, which is good on the whole, but it
means pragmatism wins out over aesthetics sometimes.  But I also agree
using Z would be a very big step forward.

-----Original Message-----
From: david@m... [mailto:david@m...]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 12:58 PM
To: XML Dev
Subject: Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other
name...)


Michael Kay writes:

 > This whole thread just reconfirms my view, stated a couple of weeks
 > ago, that the current spec is hopelessly informal and we need some
 > PhD student to sit down and produce a version in Z or something
 > similar.

That's probably too harsh.  I am actually quite fond of the XML 1.0
REC, and believe that it has worked for the most part. 

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other name...)
    • From: Sean Mc Grath <digitome@i...>

• Prev by Date: Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other name...)
• Next by Date: Re: Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other name...)
• Previous by thread: Re: CDATA by any other name... (was The raw and the cooked)
• Next by thread: RE: Is XML 1.0 underspecified? (was: Re: CDATA by any other name...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread