• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
• Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:05:44 -0700
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=JkuQhXOFxVyp9wauOdODWXiy1Wd0bl5s9hqwCMUddYWDKqxD6ujpI/ac+3Lwe1xlUPDfX+oUUsJju8sK7uM14dHbQYuZVmjqeobTdIJk0vBpcMg6Uw+HvCERqNGGxSslgJsAlUtbE/LHOYgS41Xs1ya/1uX6uPK6HcrHW2JvF5I=
• In-reply-to: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D10592FE27@R...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D10592FE27@R...>

On 8/16/05, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...> wrote:

> The lack of existence of a formalism was not really a factor as far as I
> remember.

RELAX NG's foundation on hedge automata is (or at least used to be)
cited as a factor in its technical success.  I'm saying  "don't bother
with a formalism unless you're really building on it."

• References:
  • RE: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Next by Date: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Previous by thread: RE: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Next by thread: RE: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread