On Oct 1, 11:36 pm, Tad Glines <[email protected]> wrote:
> My comments on that section of the spec are more of a nit-pick anyway.
> I understand why they chose to use "<line></line>text" instead of
> "<line>text</line>". And, I'm assuming they used "<line/>" instead of
> "<line></line>" in the spec because it looks cleaner. And reduces the
> chances that someone will assume that "<line>text</line>" is ok.
Tad, i hope you can help me, i'm trying to figure out the reason that
have driven the design of the <line> tag.
I really can't find the reason why it has been choosen to be "<line></
line>text" instad of "<line>text</line>", as you appear to know the
reason, or if anyone knows it, can you please explain me?
i'm also confused by the fact that the Wave protocol is declared to be
inspired by XML but it is not fully compliant.
why that? XML works pretty well and is proven to be quite flexible,
why we need to write a Wave parser when there are dozen of XML parser
out there?
Am i missing something?
I'm very excited by Wave, but this two details sounds very strange to
me so i'm afraid that i've really missed something
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave
Protocol" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
