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

Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedsp

• From: Martin Gudgin <marting@d...>
• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:16:17 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>; <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:45 PM
Subject: Re:  Debating "civil disobedience" against overly
complicated specs


> At 08:43 PM 9/24/2001 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
<SNIP>Interesting discourse on generic parsers</SNIP>

> On the other hand, may it would make some people happy to declare SOAP an
> SGML Protocol, and then that annoying "Simple" on the front of it could
> mean "SGML".

Actually, as of the 1.2 WD, SOAP has had its acronym status revoked! The
four letters no longer stand for anything...

Regards

Martin

• References:
  • Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Unique values in XML documents
• Next by Date: [ANN] A Pair of XPath Expression Evaluators
• Previous by thread: Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
• Next by thread: Re: Debating "civil disobedience" against overly complicatedspecs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread