• To: 'John Cowan' <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: XUL Standardization: Lessons from the RSS Civil War
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:20:50 -0500
• Cc: 'Tim Bray' <tbray@t...>, "'danny666@v...'" <danny666@v...>, xml-dev@l...

My mistake.  I remember having a long debate with 
Dan C. about it being normative.

I would prefer it were.  In the long run, I think 
it advantageous to keep these two works symmetrical.
I understand that is a work problem.  Even the normative 
references to URIs and Unicode have problems.

len


From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) scripsit:

> Umm... isn't that pretty much what the SGML ERB did?
> Many could propose but only the self-selected group 
> could dispose and decide.  ISO had the copyrights for 
> ISO 8879, but XML was created as a subset and the 
> normative reference maintained.  

Umm, what normative reference?  XML 1.0 has an *informative*
reference to ISO 8879.  The normative references are about URIs,
language tags, and Unicode.

• Prev by Date: Re: OFFTOPIC: Job Opportunity
• Next by Date: RE: Lessons from the RSS Civil War: The Circle Of Life
• Previous by thread: RE: XUL Standardization: Lessons from the RSS Civil War
• Next by thread: RE: XUL Standardization: Lessons from the RSS Civil War
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread