• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:12:33 -0500
• In-reply-to: <004d01c3b075$9552a730$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>
• References: <004d01c3b075$9552a730$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>

On Nov 21, 2003, at 4:22 PM, Bob Wyman wrote:

> 	I would appreciate it very much if at least one of the folk
> that sees syntax as being more important than the Infoset interface
> could try to clarify their position on this. The better we understand
> each other, the less we've got to fight about... Can anyone explain
> why encoding syntax is more important than the Infoset interface?
>

See the megathread starting at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Oct/0036.html , 
especially the various posts by Tim Bray, Elliotte Rusty Harold, and 
Simon St. Laurent .

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Next by Date: Re: Relating to XML
• Previous by thread: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Next by thread: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread