RE: Is this really it? (was: I18N response draft3)

> [[
> 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

Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 06:52:32 UTC