• To: pop3 <lbradshaw@d...>
• Subject: RE: Re: XML CMM and ISO9000 compliance? - was A standar d approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:18:07 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <5.1.1.5.2.20030825145848.02cfc220@m...>

At 02:58 PM 8/25/2003, pop3 wrote:
>Personally, I would like to see XML proofs in line with Knuth's work and 
>Codd's. Proofs that justify its existence, and define its scope and usefulness.

OK, I'll bite. Which of Codd's proofs did that for the relational model?

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: XML CMM and ISO9000 compliance? - was A standar d approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
    • From: dbexlist <dbexlists@e...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: XML CMM and ISO9000 compliance? - was A standar d approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
    • From: pop3 <lbradshaw@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML and the Relational Model
• Next by Date: RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXMLfragments in prose?
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: XML CMM and ISO9000 compliance? - was A standar d approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• Next by thread: RE: Re: XML CMM and ISO9000 compliance? - was A standar d approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread