• From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@m...>
• To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>, Miles Sabin <MSabin@i...>
• Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:34:22 +0000

> Again, I think that the existing proposals govern the remote
> data format, and that this should be separated from
> implementation within processors.

I agree. However, as none of the proposals define methods for
implementations, and no doubt will not at any time do so, I believe that
the development of them can continue unhampered.

Looking at the XHTML Modularization specification, it appears we are
producing an "XHTML Integration Set" here.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://infomesh.net/sbp/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF]
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

• References:
  • Re: Namespace related-resource bundles: just the one?
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespace related-resource bundles: just the one?
• Next by Date: RE: Namespace related-resource bundles: just the one?
• Previous by thread: Re: Namespace related-resource bundles: just the one?
• Next by thread: RE: Namespace related-resource bundles: just the one?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread