• To: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: repercussions
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:24:57 +0100
• Cc: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <00B6E51E-3250-11D8-AFEA-000A95CCC59E@x...>
• References: <r02000200-1028-35D5234E323E11D8AE870003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]> <EB32BC7F-3248-11D8-B46E-000A95A51C9E@t...> <00B6E51E-3250-11D8-AFEA-000A95CCC59E@x...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Michael Champion wrote:
> The question in my mind is whether the W3C (or a hypothetical "XML 
> Interoperability Organization" since I'll bet heavily that W3C won't 
> touch it) should try to fix it in a more surgical way before things 
> start getting really ugly?  Or should we just trust evolution to sort it 
> all out in the long run?

If you find a solution that has similar properties of authoring 
simplicity, doesn't require copying URIs, doesn't require entities, then 
they'll go away. Before that, I can't see them disappearing all that easily.

-- 
Robin Berjon

• References:
  • repercussions
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: repercussions
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: repercussions
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: repercussions
• Next by Date: Re: repercussions
• Previous by thread: Re: repercussions
• Next by thread: Re: repercussions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread