• To: "'Amelia A Lewis'" <amyzing@t...>,"'Jeff Rafter'" <jeffrafter@d...>
• Subject: RE: maps
• From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>
• Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 19:24:20 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>,"'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <1028483751.722.56.camel@marajen>

> From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:amyzing@t...]
> 
> I realize that there is a wide consensus in the XML/web community that

> optional bits are bad.  However, this, it seems to me, is a 
> counter-case.  There is no such thing as a universal type system.

{1,0} ... nah, it'd never scale. 

But seriously if we can support ISO language types in XML, why not SI,
or even just the SI base units? What all this fuss currently with
xml:lang, it's odd we don't have an xml:unit.

regards,
Bill de hÓra

..
Propylon
www.propylon.com 

 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: maps
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: maps
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: maps
• Next by Date: Merge docs
• Previous by thread: Re: maps
• Next by thread: RE: maps
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread