• To: "'David Lyon'" <david.lyon@c...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:26:06 -0000
• In-reply-to: <200502041018.25270.david.lyon@c...>
• Thread-index: AcUKRbSqkaRECWReTQGc1STcZEKVlQAAdOlg

> I can see your point. I guess they chose the less and greater than
> characters because they look a bit smoother on the screen 

Screen? We're talking about the 1960s.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>

• References:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread