• To: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Subject: Re: XLink and XForms
• From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...>
• Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:21:27 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <110.1783f762.2aa0d544@a...> <3D6F9C0D.1060309@d...> <14k0nu8dlbftej8qcf82t5pojms10u1g2l@4...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Arjun Ray wrote:
> Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...> wrote:
> | i do see the danger of enccouraging people to use non-xlink 1.0 
> | syntaxes with this strategy, and please don't bring up the 'how do 
> | i recognize xlink syntax' debate again. 
> On what basis could one conclude that some syntax is *non*-xlink?
>   "You're using non-xlink syntax!"
>   "Er... how so?"
>   "Don't argue with me!  You're using non-xlink syntax, I tell you!"
> Okay.

even easier than that:

"look into the xlink 1.0 spec"

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XLink and XForms
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>

• References:
  • XLink and XForms
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • Re: XLink and XForms
    • From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...>
  • Re: XLink and XForms
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XLink and XForms
• Next by Date: Simple easy to use Java XML parser and data type
• Previous by thread: Re: XLink and XForms
• Next by thread: Re: XLink and XForms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread