[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?

• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>, "xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:57:45 -0400

Jonathan Borden wrote:

> Let me rephrase your objection: You are (correctly) objecting to the
> development of an XML grove plan (XML Infoset) in the absense of the
> specification of the XML property set.

If anyone thinks that an XML property set distinct from the ISO SGML Property
Set ought to exist, I most heartily urge him to put his money (and time, and blood,
and sweat) where his mouth is.  "Take my job....please!"

As things stand, I have an imperfect-but-usable approximation that omits
many things irrecoverably.
 
> What we need is a common language for the specification of XML subsets
> (grove plans), from the full fidelity XML property set.

I think the idea of creating a formalism for specifying subsets of the Infoset
is a very plausible one, and if the Infoset ever gets out the door I will
think about the problem.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
  • Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - Final ReviewDraft)
• Next by Date: Re: ISO 10646 vs. Unicode in XML specs
• Previous by thread: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread