• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:26:10 -0500
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0311082111420.4898-100000@s...>

rsalz@d... (Rich Salz) writes:
>> I fear a lot of us have been backed into dogmatism or perhaps even
>> didacticism by the perverse activities of the organization you
>> represent.  There likely were better paths worth considering than
>> "this is just text", but the amount of pain the W3C has inflicted in
>> its specifications for creating typed XML has left a lot of us
>> convinced that such work is foolish, pointless, or dangerous.
>
>I'd feel a little better if you included "and its members" whenever
>you go off like that.

You're absolutely right.  Thanks for the correction!

• References:
  • Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
• Next by Date: Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
• Next by thread: Polymorphic strings (Was: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread