• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: 21 Oct 2002 15:34:14 +0200
• In-reply-to: <200210211333.JAA25797@m...>
• References: <200210211333.JAA25797@m...>

On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 15:20, John Cowan wrote:

> What was a question of justice was to get the "new" scripts into the
> XML standard.  Implementation of it by any particular system is a local
> question which should be answered according to local needs.  Adding
> the new name characters avoids the "usable xor standard" dilemma; adding
> the newline conventions avoids the "well-formed xor plaintext" dilemma.

The first one being the Ethiopian XML Interest Group and the second one
IBM finding themselves together in the XML 1.1 boat for different
reasons?
 
> People who do not need XML 1.1 need not worry about it until their business
> partners start to send it.  Then they should find plenty of tools available.

My first analysis wasn't that wrong, then, even though that's becoming
clearer!

Thanks

Eric
-- 
Did you know it? Python has now a Relax NG (partial) implementation.
                                          http://advogato.org/proj/xvif/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
• Next by Date: RE: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!
• Previous by thread: Re: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: Perceived C/B for XML 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread