Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: REST
 On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 13:47, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > The problem is to get a spec a customer can cite that does not > pull all the other features in by normative reference. I like > them even leaner than you. Lean sounds good. Perhaps it makes sense to require the specifications themselves to come with an explicit set of checkboxes this way? That'd mean developers could: a) see what the options are b) specify what options they use in a way that will be easily understood and shared Hmmm.... maybe we'll get back to the SGML declaration eventually. Us open systems ranters could just take the core set minus all the extra pieces so we didn't have to worry about inconvenient expectations. I suspect that Working Groups will shudder at the thought of any of their precious features being listed as expendable this way, but it's about time for clarity if they aren't willing to throw more things out. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
