• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>
• Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 15:48:17 +0000
• Cc: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• References: <3C847988.7020608@d...> <1015333543.3350.448.camel@l...> <3C84BE1A.5020305@d...> <1015341749.5268.493.camel@l...>
• Reply-to: francis@r...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> 
> I think it was David Megginson who suggested that XML should get smaller
> with each iteration.  I think there's hope for that eventually, but it
> isn't the trend now.  Tim Bray's skunkworks proposal
> (http://www.textuality.com/xml/xmlSW.html) offers some hope, but I'm not
> sure it would so good after a few committees.
>  
Nice link! Print and bind a few dozen copies and I'll give it out to everyone I work with...


One nitpick - although xml-dev has taught me that ASCII is by definition 
7-bit, it might be safer for those strangely unwarped people who do not 
frequent this list if 
http://www.textuality.com/xml/xmlSW.html#charencoding used some phrase 
like "Note that since the seven bit encoding known as ASCII is a subset 
of UTF-8, ordinary ASCII XML documents do not strictly need an encoding 
declaration."

Francis.

• References:
  • XML doesn't deserve its "X".
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Next by Date: RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Previous by thread: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Next by thread: RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread