Re: RE: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML doesn't dese rve its "X".)

From
Mike Champion <>
To
Date
2002-03-05T20:48:14Z
ID
<MGQOYYX3VEBIVPTO63KISRC0TR3W05.3c852f0e@MChamp>
Thread
Re: RE: [xml-dev] Stupid Question (was RE: [xml-dev] XML doesn't dese rve its "X".)
3/5/2002 3:37:12 PM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <> wrote:

>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?

Hmmm ... interesting point.  Having a travelling schema
would address my original concern.

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

Well, well-formedness brought us to the party, IMHO.  We
would be a lonely group of SGMLers whining about the incompatibilities
between Word and HTML, and CORBA and DCOM, and wishing that the
world would just take a sip of our KoolAid -- XML would have
never "taken off" without the WF "foot in the door."  I suspect
you disagree :~)