Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Megginson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Richard Light <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:38:07 -0400
Richard Light writes:
> This is exactly the sort of problem which adopting the 'grove plan'
> approach is meant to deal with. In line with your suggestion, the SGML
> property set starts with the class sgmldoc, or 'SGML document', which is
> 'the parsed SGML document. The root of the grove.'
> In my view, XAPI should be taking advantage of this existing framework
> (and naming conventions) where it is relevant to XML's requirements.
> Didn't someone do a summary of the relevant classes and properties a
> couple of months back?
I agree with Richard. Like SGML, groves can be very complicated or
simple, as required, and XML can easily use a simple model -- just
enforce a single list of supported modules, as XML enforces a single
SGML feature list and declaration.
Why redo all of the work for XML that's already been done in the
HyTime annex and DSSSL standard? I can see no advantage in
re-inventing the wheel for XML: it will simply force software and
documentation to support two different, incompatible approaches.
I do agree that we need more and better documentation on groves, but
we will need to document a proprietary XML approach as well.
For more on the grove support currently available in SP (for full SGML
and XML), see
All the best,
David Megginson firstname.lastname@example.org
Microstar Software Ltd. email@example.com
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)