• To: 'Bill de hOra' <dehora@e...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:43:44 -0600

Well, gee, that puts DARPA out of the 
compSci business.  Anyway, some say 
anything worth hearing about programming 
was said by 1956.

Note who funded Fielding's paper and the 
last folks acknowledged in the 
MIT book you referenced.  I look for the 
first mover and usually find the subtle 
but incredibly deep and expressive reach 
of the hand of the American defense budget.

Paranoids build better systems than Bible salesmen. ;-)

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill de hOra [mailto:dehora@e...]

I applaud the sentiment. There's very little innovation worth
having in computers, that wasn't already thought of and implemented
by 1980.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
    • From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>
  • RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
    • From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>

• 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