--- In xpl-dev@y..., Jonathan Burns <saski@w...> wrote:
Michael Lauzon wrote:
> This is also a good start, but the other way seemed a more
promising
> way to go, using namespaces and whatnot, we don't want a lot of
> clutter around.
Umm, let me think back.
I was arguing for grammar-based inclusions of special components,
and then Robert suggested namespaces. Would you like to see
the addition example re-expressed using simplifications like that?
I'm afraid clutter must be endemic for a while, until we develop
our own shorthand techniques.
But tell me, what was it about the source form that seemed wrong?
I'm really trying to get some argument happening on specifications
here, but it's hard with only the four of us participating.
> Please login to the groups site on eGroups, and
> check
> out the two previous ideas for the XPL programs.
Sorry, can't find it. Which group did it start in? There are 117
groups
whichshow up on a search for "XML" - it's a little frightening
> You may have to do a view source in the message.
Huh?
> Also, can people of this list signup for xpl-wishlist?
On that one. Thanks.
Jonathan
--- End forwarded message ---
|
