• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 15:48:14 -0500
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE997@HQ5>

3/5/2002 3:37:12 PM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote:

>Ummm... what's the difference in in-bandness in 
>the instance vs just requiring a schema of some kind to 
>travel with the document, other than that puts one back 
>in SGMLLand pretty solidly?

Hmmm ... interesting point.  Having a travelling schema
would address my original concern.

>
>We do seem to work a lot to preserve well-formed options.

Well, well-formedness brought us to the party, IMHO.  We
would be a lonely group of SGMLers whining about the incompatibilities
between Word and HTML, and CORBA and DCOM, and wishing that the
world would just take a sip of our KoolAid -- XML would have
never "taken off" without the WF "foot in the door."  I suspect
you disagree :~)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn'tdese rve its "X".)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rve its "X".)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rve its "X".)
• Next by Date: Re: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn'tdese rve its "X".)
• Previous by thread: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rve its "X".)
• Next by thread: Re: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn'tdese rve its "X".)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread