> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wang Xianzhu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 9:13 AM
> To: ietf
> Subject: Why XML is perferable
>
> >
> > Well it worked fine for 2800+ documents and how many today ?
> 3060+ today, with many ugly figures in '-', '_', 'o', '/', '\' chars,
> which
> is very difficult to read. In XML, you can even search for figures if
> we develop unified Internet/flowchart/etc DTDs.
>
Yes, fine - if you happen to like messy diagrams; are not Chinese,
Japanese, Korean, Arabic, .......
> > BTW, I hate to pay for ITU documents what are supposed to be public (I
> > still
> > remember the years old discussion when they ceased to exist available
> > for anon ftp)
>
> I hate ITU too. :)
>
Nice to see some reasoned argument for a change !
> >
> > Regards
> > Jorge.
> >
> >
> Regards,
> Wang Xianzhu
>
- Why XML is perferable Jun'an Gao
- Re: Why XML is perferable Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Why XML is perferable Wang Xianzhu
- Re: Why XML is perferable Jorge Amodio
- Re: Why XML is perferable Jun'an Gao
- Re: Why XML is perferable Jun'an Gao
- Re: Why XML is perferable Valdis . Kletnieks
- Why XML is perferable Wang Xianzhu
- RE: Why XML is perferable graham . travers
- Re: Why XML is perferable Jon Crowcroft
- RE: Why XML is perferable graham . travers
- RE: Why XML is perferable Shaw, Robert
- Re: Why XML is perferable Bob Braden
- Re: Why XML is perferable Jun'an Gao
- Re: Why XML is perferable Sean Finn
- Re: Why XML is perferable Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Why XML is perferable Bob Braden
- Re: Why XML is perferable Stephen McHenry
- Re: Why XML is perferable Jon Crowcroft
- Re: Why XML is perferable John Stracke
- Re: Why XML is perferable Ren
