Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Gavin Nicol)
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:58:18 -0500
>> This depends. You can model a grove *soooo* simply, and it's
>> actually a very useful data structure. I find grove plans to
>> not be all that useful (I'd rather just model the generic grove
>> and leave the grove plan up to the contructing application).
>Ok. Who would use the grove definition and for what?
Grove plans are useful for validating the grove construction
processor. Note that I think this is actually a very important
capability, but I *personally* do not use it.
[In general, I think that tool validation is *very* important, which
is why I took the stand I did in the XML-WG]
>I'd have to side with specificity. Getting absolute generality
>seems to be the way things like HyTime took forever to get done,
>and then, were very hard to understand because of the generality.
Here I'll have to disagree with you. In this case, generality also
brings about simplicity, and rightly so, because what we are modelling
is simple (as are groves, fundamentally). The other benefit of a more
general interface is that is is no longer tied to a specific
syntax... and I'll let *that* point sink in slowly.
>> I would also argue that distributed objects are where the world is
>> heading: code replication is fine for certain things, but not for
>Agree. I would not be surprised to see an assault on HTTP's ubiquity
>start in the future. But that is not an issue for us to discuss here.
Want to bet where the next step afetr distributed objects falls? :-)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (email@example.com)