• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:39:26 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3E2870E4.7030409@e...>
• References: <r01050400-1023-D9101B0A2A4311D781E20003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]><005c01c2be52$5d2fbac0$6aa8a8c0@c...><15912.19711.574153.278553@m...><3E2870E4.7030409@e...>

Patrick Durusau writes:

 > > XML (generic), Extensible Markup Language
 > 
 > Don't take this as legal advice or even accurate facts. Any "official" 
 > types for the W3C care to comment?

I've been off the committees for a few years now, so you'll need
someone more recent to bring us up to date.  Has the W3C abandoned its
trademark of XML?


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson, david@m..., http://www.megginson.com/

• References:
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
    • From: "Mike Plusch" <mplusch@c...>
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
    • From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@e...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Next by Date: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Previous by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Next by thread: RE: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread