• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:52:57 -0400

Len


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

right, "Infoset" and "grove" are two only slightly different angles on the
same thing. Groves scared people off and so a new word "infoset" was
invented and now its the cool thing to do.

> I am only horrified if as
> Simon and others note, options for post-XML
> processing become the definition of XML
> processors de jure.
>

right. this is something that we need to look at carefully and implement in
a reasonable fashion. that PSVI expansion of an attribute _does_ look pretty
scary :-)

-Jonathan

• References:
  • RE: Types and Context
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: APIs, messaging
• Next by Date: Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
• Previous by thread: RE: Types and Context
• Next by thread: 3 basic XML questions on: non-determism, reserved symbols, and xml:lang
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread