• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:42:49 -0500

It probably should be a mainstream topic because 
it already is.  Existence proof and all that.

What is wrong with what Jonathan did with 
groves for XML?  Instead of gnoshing SGML, 
maybe XML should say, "cool, let's do that" 
and move on.  I am only horrified if as 
Simon and others note, options for post-XML 
processing become the definition of XML 
processors de jure.

New names for old things don't improve the 
design; they change the authority. 

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean.mcgrath@p...]

[Jonathan Borden]

>sure. what we still need is a processable incarnation of the "PSVI". no
such
>thing exists today.

Canonical Grove Representation.

http://www.ornl.gov/sgml/wg8/docs/n1920/html/clause-A.4.5.html

I point this out, not because I think groves and infosets should be
mainstream topics of conversation for XML technologists, just to
point out that this is old territory in the SGML world.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Types and Context
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
• Next by Date: RE: XML is _post_ OO
• Previous by thread: RE: beginner doubt, kindly assist
• Next by thread: Re: Types and Context
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread