• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:29:46 -0800

At 09:33 AM 1/21/00 -0500, Didier PH Martin wrote:
>If we say that the margin of error of this sample is 10% , it means that at
>least 31% of the browsers in the population sampled has an XML browser, not
>bad. So, if we make the right inferences:

That's only if you think that IE5 counts as an XML browser, realistically.
I don't. -Tim

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/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom@i... the message
unsubscribe xml-dev  (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address

Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
    • From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>
  • RE: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
  • Re: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Clearer W3C Specs (was Re: XML Information Set is seeding impenetrable language; reconsider?)
• Next by Date: Re: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
• Previous by thread: Browsers evolution
• Next by thread: Re: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread