• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:26:56 +0100
• References: <000001c1c45f$141f0900$887ba8c0@mitchum>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020214

Bill de hÓra wrote:

> To respond to the first paragraph above. You don't need paternal
> specifications to protect your applications from change. You need
> better developers.

OTH, a successful technology is a technology which *real* developers can 
deal with :) ... and I think that a specification which pretends to be 
eXtensible could have done a better job in the domain!

Eric
-- 
See you in Seattle.
                                        http://knowledgetechnologies.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org      http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• References:
  • 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