• To: Xml-Dev (E-mail) <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Do Names Matter?
• From: Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@e...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:37:57 -0600
• Organization: OMS Development

3/22/02 4:17:55 PM, Murali Mani <mani@C...> wrote:
>Anyways, RELAX was introduced at a time when people who were using XML
>Schemas, those trying to implement XML Schemas from W3C, and those who
>were developing the XML Schema spec were tense and over-worked :) It was
>introduced so that they can RELAX by adopting RELAX. I think the name
>RELAX suits quite perfectly.. RELAX NG also suits I believe.

Except for the little fact that you're using "relax" to refer to something that's supposed to impose 
constraints, and we usually speak of "relaxing" constraints to mean the exact opposite.  Still, it's 
better than the MS-Windows debugger from the early 90s called Rebug, which always for me conjured up 
visions of a tool for putting bugs back into code after they'd been fixed.

• Prev by Date: Re: Training
• Next by Date: FW: what's wrong with this?
• Previous by thread: Re: Do Names Matter?
• Next by thread: RE: Do Names Matter?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread