• Subject: Re: canonicalization
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 15:52:39 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <1015032338.3309.3.camel@l...> <p04330103b8a7fd271d04@[192.168.254.4]> <1015178176.5268.43.camel@l...> <p04330104b8a8106aa395@[192.168.254.4]> <1015193078.3350.61.camel@l...> <p04330107b8a85bc15730@[192.168.254.4]> <1015201142.3309.108.camel@l...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> Then that leaves me wondering yet again whether XInclude is as good an
> idea as its promoters seems to believe.  


Despite the fact that XInclude seems like an obviously-good idea, I
do not observe a rush of implementations nor people complaining about
the recommendation not being done.  I'm not sure, to be honest, if
the world really eneds it.  I don't for any of my work.  -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• References:
  • canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: canonicalization
• Next by Date: Re: canonicalization
• Previous by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Next by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread