• From: Danny Ayers <danny@p...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:30:52 +0600

My mistake, I was thinking 'obfustication' (now where did I get that..?)

10/10 4 o9n BTW! 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Robertson [mailto:jamesr@s...]
> Sent: 17 January 2001 12:55
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE: How could RDDL be distributed ?
> 
> 
> At 17:16 17/01/2001, Danny Ayers wrote:
> > > > > Damn these shortenings of words. They are
> > > > > causing way too much o9n.
> >
> >Nope, I can't get this one - unless it's meant to be o11n ?
> 
> "obfuscation"...
> 
> J
> 
> -------------------------
> James Robertson
> Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
> SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
> Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution
> 
> http://www.steptwo.com.au/
> jamesr@s...
> 

• References:
  • RE: How could RDDL be distributed ?
    • From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Previous by thread: RE: How could RDDL be distributed ?
• Next by thread: Re: How could RDDL be distributed ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread