• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,"Sean B. Palmer" <sean@m...>,"Simon \"St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:40:26 -0500

Missed one bit.  For naming processors, isn't that what a 
NOTATION can do?

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean B. Palmer [mailto:sean@m...]

> > One could say that a certain element is allowed in place x,
> > and the other could say that it isn't. Which is to be believed?
>
> The authority problem.

No, not authority, not a problem, just a lack of expressiveness. I'm
not saying that one way is particularly right or wrong, just that
they're different, and you want to point out why they're different,
what processors that applies to, and so forth.

• Prev by Date: RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
• Next by Date: RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
• Previous by thread: RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
• Next by thread: RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread