[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?

• To: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:56:36 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200502041106.19780.david.lyon@c...>
• References: <E1CwqMU-0006Kn-00@u...><200502041106.19780.david.lyon@c...>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

/ David Lyon <david.lyon@c...> was heard to say:
| On Thursday 03 February 2005 06:26 pm, you wrote:
|> > I can see your point. I guess they chose the less and greater than
|> > characters because they look a bit smoother on the screen
|>
|> Screen? We're talking about the 1960s.
|
| Are you saying xml is that old? I'd be interested any reading any
| links about xml in the sixties...

Since no one else has mentioned it, XML is a direct descendent of SGML
which does have a heritage that goes back to the 60's.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@n...> | A man's dying is more the survivors'
http://nwalsh.com/            | affair than his own.--Thomas Mann

PGP signature

• References:
  • RE: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Previous by thread: RE: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread