Re: [xtm-wg] XTM Processing Model - proposal for requirements

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Sam Hunting
|
| I think we're in synch on this.

If you think so we probably are. :-)
 
| My wording for your #1 was:
| 
| "interoperability is of paramount concern"
| 
| Given consensus on that, we can presumably keep the fighting on the
| rest of it to a normal level ;-) 

Yup. In particular, we now have a basis for deciding which formalism
should be chosen, in that arguments can more easily be made for which
fulfills the requirements better.

| This will also prevent us from making the same mistakes that
| happened in the SGML world, where the expensive consultants like me
| were flown places to tell people to remove the DOCTYPE line to get
| this or that editor to work...

Let us hope so.
 
--Lars M.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep
in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered
high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/n4HqaC/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/