• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:57:48 -0400

At 05:41 PM 7/31/00 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>This is because of all the flak that SGML property sets and groves have
>taken, so the Infoset is a renamed baby not yet tainted. If you want to be
>able to define your own 'pruning' of a complete XML document you want
>property sets and grove plans (and I'll bet *you* never thought you'd need
>these :-)

Thanks for the red herring, Jonathan.  I'm not especially excited about
groves, despite several efforts at becoming interested, but I don't find
the Infoset adequate either.  Its philosophy of partial abstraction (at
least it's not meta-meta-abstraction) just seems plain broke.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by Date: Re: entity reference
• Previous by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread