• From: Leigh Dodds <ldodds@i...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,Ben Trafford <ben@l...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:35:37 +0000

> Is Rick J. right? Do it but don't call it XML? 
> Does that 'renaming' save us anything but 
> admitting we need something like groves and 
> grove plans?  In my opinion, once you take 
> away lexical unification (same syntax), 
> by definition, by Draconian rule, it quits 
> being XML.

I think these are fair points. After all its not 
so long since we were asking "How much does 
a developer need to know before they can 
do useful work with XML?" [1]

If this stuff isn't central to getting immediate 
benefits, then lets label it as such.

We want a shallow incline, not a cliff.

[1]. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/10/11/deviant/index.html

Cheers,

L.

-- 
Leigh Dodds, Systems Architect       | "Pluralitas non est ponenda
http://weblogs.userland.com/eclectic |    sine necessitate"
http://www.xml.com/pub/xmldeviant    |     -- William of Ockham

• References:
  • RE: more grist
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT 1.1
• Next by Date: [Fwd: Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to withdraw xsl:script from XSLT1.1]
• Previous by thread: Re: more grist
• Next by thread: Re: more grist
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread