• To: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:47:19 -0800
• Cc: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <cc159a4a05020413364d9b45c0@m...>
• References: <6.0.0.22.0.20050204222038.02251d70@p...> <20050204204803.GA31024@t...> <4203E349.9070803@k...> <cc159a4a0502041317af483be@m...> <4203E93A.1040302@k...> <cc159a4a05020413364d9b45c0@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)

Peter Hunsberger wrote:

>>
>>Then why are you arguing?
> 
> 
> Perhaps because I'm not so myopic to believe that my needs are true
> for the rest of the universe of XML users, or then again, perhaps
> because it's Friday afternoon and I'm getting tired from a week long
> refactoring session...
> 

This seems to be a thread about a wishlist (maybe I am wrong?). 
Diplomacy, at this stage, seems premature.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Christian Nentwich <christian@s...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>

• References:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>

• 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