> [[ > Why we didn't accept I18N's objection to the design of XML literals > > 1. Review status of the WG, noting that we're long overdue, losing > participation, and that the I18N desideratum for "seamless plain and XML > literals" was only articulated well after the end of LC1. This might use > material from my earlier message [1]. Hmm, while finding much of your msg compelling .. I note that this requirement "seamless plain and XML literals" is not part of the objection - so we don't particularly need to justify not addressing this. More later JeremyReceived on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 06:52:32 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 30 September 2003 06:52:45 EDT