• From: Dave Winer <dave@u...>
• To: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:27:45 -0700

Rick, I do not suggest that the makers of specs are responsible for vendor's
product cycle decisions. As a developer who minors in spec writing, I don't
even think that's true. Of course the spec-writers are not responsible. The
developers are responsible. Are there any responsible developers here? Have
a nice day. Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick JELLIFFE" <ricko@g...>
To: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)


> Dave Winer wrote:
>
> > My pov: XML should be providing a means for interop between all kinds of
> > apps. It should be happening now.
>
> "Should"
>  seems to suggest that the makers of specs are responsible for vendor's
> product cycle decisions.  If applications have a 3 year life, and if it
> takes 2 product cycles to get anything well-integrated, then we can
> start to say "should" in about 2004.  Perhaps incremental updates over
> the Web should speed this up.
>
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)
    • From: Dave Winer <dave@u...>
  • Re: interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: What does it mean: chronologically less
• Next by Date: XML Schema - use of min(max)Inclusive(Exclusive) on some characterbased types
• Previous by thread: Re: interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)
• Next by thread: Extended-XLink tutorial
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread