W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2007

RE: (Partial) review of Versioning XML

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:43:02 -0400
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>, "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFFA609F9.F725BB04-ON852572FE.00813DCD-852572FE.00820946@lotus.com>

Dave Orchard writes:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:31 AM
> > To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> > Cc: Norman Walsh; David Orchard; www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: (Partial) review of Versioning XML
> > 
> > In shorter, a language is a (mathematical) set of XML documents.
> > Note that this precludes us from talking about *the* language 
> > of a document, which I consider to be a Good Thing.
> I think I'm rapidly getting to the same place, see one post at

Dave: it looks like that blog entry is 404.  In fact, I've been meaning to 
suggest that when we reference something from one of our blogs that's 
likely to be important to understanding a TAG or other W3C discussion, I 
think it makes sense to record a copy in the W3C archive.   I have no 
problem with also linking the private blog copy, as that makes clear the 
context of the contribution.   I think it's pretty clear that the 
persistence characteristics of private blogs are often not nearly as good 
as those of resources administered by the W3C.  Anyway, I'm curious to 
know what this posting said.  Thanks.


Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 23:42:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:16 UTC