[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Yes, I have already conceded that we need a "master copy" The point is that, if there exists a non-master copy that's easier for some people to read, they won't read the master. If the non-master copy doesn't agree with the master (and many of them won't), then these people *will* make mistakes, and create non-interoperable implementations. It won't even be their fault; they're using the tools that were provided. -- /================================================================\ |John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |===============================================| |eCal Corp. |All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|make me happy. | \================================================================/
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs Vernon Schryver
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs Vernon Schryver
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs Marshall T. Rose
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs Marshall T. Rose
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs Michael Mealling
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs Lyndon Nerenberg
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs Bora Akyol
- RE: HTML better for small PDAs graham . travers
- RE: HTML better for small PDAs joaquin . riverarodriguez
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs Jon Crowcroft
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs John Stracke
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs John Stracke
- RE: HTML better for small PDAs Rosen, Brian
- RE: HTML better for small PDAs graham . travers
- RE: HTML better for small PDAs graham . travers
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs John Stracke
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs John Stracke
- Re: HTML better for small PDAs Michael Richardson
