• To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
• From: "Rob Lugt" <roblugt@e...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:58:55 +0100
• References: <4.2.0.58.20020623163907.03bd6f10@p...> <4.2.0.58.20020623172350.03d1acf0@p...> <019c01c21aff$bb76c160$0200a8c0@e...> <002401c21b35$d225bb60$961b3044@r...>

Thomas B. Passin wrote
> Plus, xhtml with short tags wouldn't work in standard browsers.

Are you suggesting that standard browser compatibility is a reasonable
criteria for judging future modifications to XML?  If so, I wonder how XML
1.1 [1] will fair.

Regards
~Rob

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier toauthor) XML
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
    • From: "Rob Lugt" <roblugt@e...>
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier toauthor) XML
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Logical markup Language
• Next by Date: Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easierto author) XML
• Previous by thread: Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier toauthor) XML
• Next by thread: Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier toauthor) XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread