• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XLink and XForms
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 18:34:49 +0000
• In-reply-to: <3D70D0E7.5080204@d...>
• References: <110.1783f762.2aa0d544@a...> <3D6F9C0D.1060309@d...> <14k0nu8dlbftej8qcf82t5pojms10u1g2l@4...> <3D70D0E7.5080204@d...>

Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...> wrote:

| even easier than that:
| 
| "look into the xlink 1.0 spec"

Which, of course, is where the debates start.  I could say it's all about
naming the names, but that would run up smack against a very deepseated
prejudice.

• 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...>
  • Re: XLink and XForms
    • From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...>

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