• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: SML: Second Try
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:20:14 -0500
• In-reply-to: <E18iBRC-0005rT-00@m...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <E18iBRC-0005rT-00@m...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

On Monday 10 February 2003 05:45 am, John Cowan wrote:
> > You know, it'd be great if people wouldn't make claims about what XML was
> > supposed to have been, and about what happened during the process of
> > defining XML.
>
> Well, that's the price of meeting in secret: people will always assume
> thereafter that you were a committee of the Illuminati.

There *are* archives of much of the stuff though.

It's usually counterproductive to point back and say "these guys were evil and 
didn't know what they were doing"... especially when combined with 
archeological mind-reading. 

It's better to say "here's a problem, let's fix it".

• References:
  • Re: SML: Second Try
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: SML: Second Try
• Next by Date: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Previous by thread: Re: SML: Second Try
• Next by thread: SGML->XML->? (was Re: SML: Second Try)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread