• To: Don Bate <donbate@i...>
• Subject: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 09:47:08 -0800
• Cc: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <p05200f00ba7d640a80a3@[192.168.1.10]>
• References: <3E57AEFB.20501@t...> <p05200f00ba7d640a80a3@[192.168.1.10]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Don Bate wrote:
> Just for my edification - I thought the term XML was specifically 
> claimed by W3C as a generic term and therefore was _NOT_ specifically 
> defined or controlled by the W3C. Am I missing something or 
> misunderstanding the implications of "generic term"?

Er, not sure, to be honest.  But the most effective thing the W3C could 
do in this kind of situation would be advocacy/evangelism anyhow.  It 
would be very painful for Sun, I assume, to appear to be publicly 
opposed to the community in this matter.

And I repeat: I do *not* speak for the W3C in any way. -Tim

• References:
  • The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Don Bate <donbate@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Next by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Previous by thread: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Next by thread: RE: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread