• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: xml-utterly-practical (was RE: Advice: inline node editing, or not?)
• From: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)
• Date: 24 Jul 2003 18:37:31 -0700
• In-reply-to: <16160.6972.413482.611740@m...>
• References: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPOEEGDHAA.danny666@v...><048c01c35167$8474bbf0$1401a8c0@snobird><16160.6972.413482.611740@m...>
• Sender: ari@l...
• User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

David Megginson <david@m...> writes:

> I doubt that an xml-phi list would prove all that popular, though,
> since the philosophers need an audience other than each-other.

Being a member of that audience is what makes a subscription
worthwhile for me.

Ari.

• References:
  • xml-utterly-practical (was RE: Advice: inline node editing, or not?)
    • From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
  • Re: xml-utterly-practical (was RE: Advice: inline node editing, or not?)
    • From: "Bob Foster" <bob@o...>
  • Re: xml-utterly-practical (was RE: Advice: inline node editing, or not?)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml-utterly-practical (was RE: Advice: inline node editing, or not?)
• Next by thread: Re: Advice: inline node editing, or not?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread