- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:35:47 -0500
- To: David Ryan <david@einet.com.au>
- Cc: bob@wyman.us, "'Robin Berjon'" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, public-xml-binary@w3.org
David Ryan scripsit: > I agree that XML Schema wasn't the best solution they could have come up > with. However, I believe they still made the right choice of creating > their own standard. I also think the W3C shouldn't tie the XBC to > ASN.1. If future changes are required then it ties the whole W3C to the > ASN.1 committee. There is enough red tape and politics in standards as > it is. Tieing two large committees together would just add more warts > and humps to the committee designed standard. The Unicode Technical Committee and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2, which are jointly responsible for the Unicode Standard and ISO 10646, have not found it so. It would have been far worse to have two different universal character sets. -- John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com Monday we watch-a Firefly's house, but he no come out. He wasn't home. Tuesday we go to the ball game, but he fool us. He no show up. Wednesday he go to the ball game, and we fool him. We no show up. Thursday was a double-header. Nobody show up. Friday it rained all day. There was no ball game, so we stayed home and we listened to it on-a the radio. --Chicolini
Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 03:36:23 UTC