• To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Minimal XML Specification
• From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
• Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:04:33 +1100
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <43E87615.2040804@m...>
• References: <BAY107-W48F9A42E16109405E0F6B990E0@p...> <47688.203.51.21.48.1139273522.squirrel@i...> <1139299109.9259.33.camel@l...> <43E87615.2040804@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040502)

Elliotte Harold wrote:

> Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>
>> What makes you think the community would have have changed anything by
>> spending more time to try to influence the spec?
>
What makes you think they couldn't have? 

> It's possible a few of the minor inconsistencies, unclear wording, and 
> outright mistakes could have been fixed had someone noticed them and 
> spoken up at the right time. However the major issues of design and 
> whether this was the right approach to a schema language really was 
> never on the table.
>
And people at the time knew this how? 

Cheers
Rick

• References:
  • RE: Minimal XML Specification
    • From: "Michael Champion" <michael.champion@h...>
  • RE: Minimal XML Specification
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@a...>
  • RE: Minimal XML Specification
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: Minimal XML Specification
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Why is XPath2 being so explicit about types of substitution grp members?
• Next by Date: RE: Why is XPath2 being so explicit about types of substitution grp members?
• Previous by thread: Re: Minimal XML Specification
• Next by thread: Please unsubscribe me? Unsubscribe on website doesn't work. Thanks.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread