- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:41:19 -0000
- To: <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <rsalz@datapower.com>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
damned if we do, damned if we don't .. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] Sent: 21 November 2004 15:29 To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C; rsalz@datapower.com; sanjiva@watson.ibm.com Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org Subject: RE: New Issue: use XSD to describe the syntax [i032] Likewise, my experience suggests that if we were to support XML 1.1 it is certain to be questioned again later. :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws- > addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 2:53 AM > To: rsalz@datapower.com; sanjiva@watson.ibm.com > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Subject: RE: New Issue: use XSD to describe the syntax [i032] > > > Rich wrote: > > I think that if this WG wants to address XML1.1 -- perhaps > > someone should open a new issue on that exact point > > if as a WG we elect to ignore XML 1.1 it is very likely to > be questioned again later. i'll raise a separate issue as a > placeholder for this discussion. > > Paul
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 13:40:40 UTC