• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Byzantine schism
• From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
• Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:30:43 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <000001c2505d$084119e0$6401a8c0@didierhome>

Hi,

Hoops I forgot to include XSL-FO as some clever members has mentioned.

Updated news about the Bizantine Schism:
a) using Xlink or allowing its uses as defined in the specs: 2 (SVG,
MathML)
b) not using it: 3 (XHTML, XForm, SMIL, XSL-FO)

Note: XSL_FO specifications (Oct 15 2001) where published after the
xlink recommendation (June 27 2001).

Question: Is there any integration or consistency checking process in
W3C. If not, we may have the explanation. Even if a lot of brilliant
people are active participant to the W3C WG, if wrong processes are
used, wrong results occurs. I may have the best wood to make the best
furniture and still get garbage if I use a mini mill manufacture to
produce the them. If W3C has such consistency checking mechanism can I
say WAKE UP! :-)

Cheers
Didier PH Martin

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Byzantine schism
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Byzantine schism
    • From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>

• References:
  • Byzantine schism
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is W3C Losing the Plot?
• Next by Date: Re: Byzantine schism
• Previous by thread: Byzantine schism
• Next by thread: Re: Byzantine schism
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread