- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:36:43 -0600
- To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, wsawg public <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:05 PM > To: wsawg public > Subject: Re: proposals without much pushback > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jun/0033.html +1 > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jun/0021.html This seems out of scope, but I can live with it. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jun/0030.html +1 > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jun/0031.html no opinion > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jun/0000.html I'm surely a small minority, but I'd prefer "W3C or ISO standard schema syntax" See the IETF discussion of a similar issue spawned by James Clark http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/msg00217.html This is not a "lay down in the road issue" for me, so please don't waste F2F time if no one else cares about it. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0446.html I can live with it > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0459.html no opinion > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0435.html I like the original wording better, but I can live with it > > > >
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 20:37:15 UTC