• From: Jeff Greif <jgreif@a...>
• To: david@g..., "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:22:33 -0700

I think that Len meant that being around 4 years was insufficient
justification in itself for starting work on XML 2.0; rather, a list of
putative mistakes, dubious decisions, omissions and potential enhancements
would drive people to initiate action.  Of course, you probably didn't mean
that being around 4 years was a good reason in itself either.

Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lyon" <david@g...>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>; <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 3:59 PM
Subject: Re:  XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups


>
> Claude,
>
> I disagree with your statement about difficulty. There are many parts of
> xml 1.0 that are particularly difficult and innefficient. One only has to
> look to the questions posted on this list to see that.
>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
    • From: David Lyon <david@g...>

• References:
  • RE: XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
    • From: David Lyon <david@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Cutting special deals for open source developers -- noway!
• Next by Date: Re: Cutting special deals for open source developers --noway!
• Previous by thread: Re: XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
• Next by thread: Re: XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread