[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)

• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• To: John Cowan <cowan@m...>, Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:02:11 -0400

At 10:59 PM 7/22/2001 -0400, John Cowan wrote:


>We are not talking about not labelling.  The issue is: should a document
>labelled Blueberry be required to actually exploit at least one Blueberry
>feature, or is it all right to take a well-formed XML 1.0 document
>and label it Blueberry without further change?

Why wouldn't it be ok?

Any intersection between the sets of well-formed XML 1.0 documents and XML 
"Blueberry" documents can be labelled as one or the other, or both (just as 
a valid document can also be labelled well-formed -- that particular 
intersection is not mutually exclusive).

Ann

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by Date: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Previous by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread