On tisdag, feb 11, 2003, at 20:00 Europe/Stockholm, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sure, I would actually prefer tXML to XML::Terse but that form implies
that there is something of an aversion to new top-level namespaces. It
hasn't been discussed on mailing lists yet - just using it internally
right
Sure thing. I'll fire up a post. (Is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the de facto standard one?)
- Jon
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, A. Bergman wrote:
>
> On tisdag, feb 11, 2003, at 20:00 Europe/Stockholm, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Sure, I would actually prefer tXML to XML::Terse but that form implies
> >
Sure, I would actually prefer tXML to XML::Terse but that form implies
that there is something of an aversion to new top-level namespaces. It
hasn't been discussed on mailing lists yet - just using it internally
right now.
- Jon
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, A. Bergman wrote:
> I don't really like th
On tisdag, feb 11, 2003, at 17:58 Europe/Stockholm, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ubject: Re: Module submission XML::Terse
Good questions!
I proposed that it belongs in the XML namespace because, depending on
its
usage, it is essentially (a) an XML variant, or (b) an XML
authoring/visualization
Good questions!
I proposed that it belongs in the XML namespace because, depending on its
usage, it is essentially (a) an XML variant, or (b) an XML
authoring/visualization tool. Of course I'm open to guidance here -
any alternatives in mind?
I guess was thinking of putting in XML::Terse rather
On måndag, feb 10, 2003, at 21:35 Europe/Stockholm, Perl Authors Upload
Server wrote:
The following module was proposed for inclusion in the Module List:
modid: XML::Terse
DSLIP: idpOp
description: Terse Representation for XML Documents
userid: JSALZ (Jon Salz)
chapt
