• To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>, "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: InkML
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:21:26 -0500

I agree.  Checkbox compatibility is a good phrase to 
describe this kind of design.

len

From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]

clbullar@i... (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>Is the syntax of InkML really opaque? 

1125 18432'23'43"7"-8 3-5+7  -3+6+2+6 8+3+6:T;+2+4:*T;+3+6+3-6:FF;

>But it is still XML.

So long as you wrap it in a start tag and an end tag, base64 is also
XML.  Great.

InkML has checkbox compatibility with XML.  That buys very little.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: InkML
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Are we ready for the namespace ID registry, yet? (was: RelaxNG question)
• Next by Date: RE: Are we ready for the namespace ID registry, yet? (w as: RelaxNG question)
• Previous by thread: RE: InkML
• Next by thread: RE: InkML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread