• To: "The Deviants" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:24:03 -0800
• In-reply-to: <012c01c1a9f8$a7c5b4a0$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• References: <4XOKTPSQ3W1VLJ9607AZVUSBAUOYX05.3c586905@MChamp><093701c1a9f2$71c37820$0a2e249b@n...><3C589A61.95139DF@p...>

At 12:43 PM 31/01/02 +1100, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>For XML 2, if it keeps entities

*If* there's ever an XML 2 - and that's a long shot - one of
the #1 requirements would be nuke entities, I think.  -Tim

• References:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by Date: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread