• To: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
• Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:06:19 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <E1CwqMU-0006Kn-00@u...>
• References: <E1CwqMU-0006Kn-00@u...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.7.1

On Thursday 03 February 2005 06:26 pm, you wrote:
> > 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.

Are you saying xml is that old? I'd be interested any reading any
links about xml in the sixties...

My first computer was a z-80 based thing that could be programmed
in basic, pascal, or assembly language.

Looks kindof old fashioned now:

 www.sharpmz.org/mz-700/first700.htm

It certainly had no xml capability, I'm very sure of that... not even
a modem... ah.. the days of the "secure" os..


Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>

• References:
  • RE: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• 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