RE: XSet, an XML Property Set, was: re: Why the Infoset?
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > > Why? Precisely why? > > Before we add one more stack of paper to the > already too dense stack of markup technical > specifications, we really need a defense for > it. > > "This is too hard" is just too dumb to > hear one more time in this saga. > From this last quote (who are you quoting here? not me.) I take it to mean that you are implying that others have argued against groves and property sets because "This is too hard"? The bottom line issue is not whether groves are too hard, but that, for example, Simon sees a discussion of "grove plans and property sets" a "red herring" in the context of a full fidelity XML information model and a mechanism to subset such into, e.g. Common XML. Whose fault is this? are groves really a red herring? In which case we really really need a way to specify a full fidelity XML model and subsets. Are 99.99% of people just unable to understand? (is this what you are implying by the above?) If this is the case I fault the description, not the people. Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format