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

RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rve it

• To: 'Mike Champion' <mc@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rve its "X".)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 14:37:12 -0600

Ummm... what's the difference in in-bandness in 
the instance vs just requiring a schema of some kind to 
travel with the document, other than that puts one back 
in SGMLLand pretty solidly?

We do seem to work a lot to preserve well-formed options.

I liked John's cut on AFs.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...]

OK, I think I see the advantage of an "out of band" schema in this scenario.
But that brings us back to the PSVI "chicken and egg" problem that got me
started.  Sigh.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rveits "X".)
• Next by Date: Re: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Previous by thread: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by thread: Re: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread