• To: 'Norman Gray' <norman@a...>, John Cowan <cowan@c...>
• Subject: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:40:46 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

So resurrect the SGML Declaration and enable everyone 
to declare compact syntaxes for the application profiles 
in the standard way.  Why not have the compact syntaxes 
interoperate as well?

If we are to brandish big pointy sticks, maybe they 
should be standard pointy sticks.  Or are all of the 
arguments that led to the development of the SGML 
subset suddenly moot in a trendy way?

len


From: Norman Gray [mailto:norman@a...]

Indeed not.  I was just trying to detach the questions of compact syntaxes
for input versus compact syntaxes for the wire, and defend the former
against the accusation that it breaks interop.  That accusation is a
big pointy stick that (it seems) tends to get brandished with great
enthusiasm whenever syntactical questions are raised.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: HIPAA Driving A New Generation of Cash Management Service
• Next by Date: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hardfor Aunt Trudie?
• Previous by thread: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
• Next by thread: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread