Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Parts and assemblies: it's in the way that you use it. But any tweaking of the alphabet has serious implications to that framework. How long (John Cowan>?) has our standard western alphabet had 26 regular characters? The dictionary changes all the time. So perhaps XML remains important and for those who want to play above that level, so does SGML. Can one easily make XML less important? Why is XML 2.0 a low probability event? To make it a high probability event, XML has to struggle to overcome its own success or do exactly what Tim et al suggested and go forward only by taking pieces out. On the other hand, some assemblies could come unglued and that will be painful without planning. This is the flaw of extreme programming: they may actually believe the simple thing will work and hold one to it. len -----Original Message----- From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@n...] What's important is no longer XML per se but what we do with it.
|
