Re: [Ltru] Re: XML

"Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)" <> Fri, 22 June 2007 16:55 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I1mPZ-0001aO-PV; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:55:05 -0400
Received: from ltru by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I1mPY-0001aD-BN for; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:55:04 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I1mPY-0001a5-1v for; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:55:04 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I1mPV-0005jZ-Mw for; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:55:04 -0400
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l5MGreme010844; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:53:41 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:55:17 -0500
From: "\"Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)\"" <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Duerst <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: XML
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1
OpenPGP: id=262839AF; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by id l5MGreme010844
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Hash: SHA1

Martin Duerst yazmış:
> At 05:30 07/06/22, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> Your schema seems quite clsoe to mine
>> ( and I suggest that people
>> interested in moving this schema from the current draft to a "real"
>> schema, production-ready, gather in private since XML work is not well
>> received on the LTRU list.
OK, looks like you guys have it covered. I would just prefer using XML
Schema for schema, because i think it's the most standard way, and while
i'm not an XML guru per se, it is likely to be the most powerful as well.
Also, it might be worth considering supporting multiple languages for
some textual elements (by requiring a lang attribute), as in:
	<Description lang="en">
	Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet (Historical)
> The statement in the last clause is only partially true.
> When I made an attempt at a consensus call on this issue (many months ago),
> my recollection was that a slight majority of the people responding
> favored moving to XML, but that that majority wasn't strong enough
> to make the change, in particular because the people who would have
> had to do the actual work (read: editors) weren't very excited.
> It is true that if we stay with the current state (no XML), then
> we shouldn't use the list to discuss XML, because we want to
> concentrate to get our documents out.
For what it's worth, i'm ready to vote for XML. Lemme know if you folks
ever need an extra vote.

- --
My public GPG key (ID 0x262839AF) is at:
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)


Ltru mailing list