• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>, sam th <sam@u...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:05:41 -0500

Thanks for answering frankly.  Sure, we've 
all been in those discussions.  Unfortunately, 
all too often.

But if we know that is why, we seek alternatives 
if we have to.  What suffers is the binding power 
of the spec.  After awhile, we find out if the 
pedant had the right answer or not.

It isn't perfect and that is why we are pros: 
if it succeeds, we bask.  If it fails, we burn. :-)

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Navarro [mailto:ann@w...]

Sometimes there is an easily divulged technical reason. Sometimes it's 
because the group final gave in to someone (or several someones) being a 
pedantic ass about something. Telling the world THAT doesn't do anyone any 
good.

• Prev by Date: Re: PL/1 Parser
• Next by Date: Re: Java Data Binding spec
• Previous by thread: RE: Will XML change the character of W3C?
• Next by thread: RE: Will XML change the character of W3C?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread