• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn'tdese rve its "X".)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 05 Mar 2002 17:03:29 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <MGQOYYX3VEBIVPTO63KISRC0TR3W05.3c852f0e@MChamp>
• References: <MGQOYYX3VEBIVPTO63KISRC0TR3W05.3c852f0e@MChamp>

On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 15:48, Mike Champion wrote:
> >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." 

Also, saying "show me this information as well-formed XML" is a pretty
good way to assess how deeply complicated all the hidden bits are.
 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • Re: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

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