On 6/18/05, Joe Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6/17/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > P.S. Why is this on atom-sytax? Is there a concrete proposal we are > > talking about here? Is there likely to be? > > Were you expecting [atom-syntax] to vanish in a puff of smoke > once we have a couple RFCs under our belt? Given the technology, > and the participants, I would expect [atom-syntax] to have the > longevity of [xml-dev].
Nooooooooooooooooooo
