xml-dev - Re: The Power of Groves

["Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@isogen.com>
To: "cbullard@hiwaay.net" <"Len Bullard"@mail.HiWAAY.net>
Cc: <xml-dev@xml.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: The Power of Groves


>
> Yes, it has an abstract model, but what is the abstract model that
> underlies the XML abstract model? Within the infoset (or the SGML
> property set), "element" is a specialization of "node". It is "node"
> that is the base underlying abstract data model from which the
> specialized types "element", "attribute", "data character", etc. are
> defined. Without this completely generic, universal, base, there is no
> way to meaningfully compare different data models to define, for
> example, how to map from one to other, because they are not defined in
> terms of a common definitional framework.

I'm curious ... there's a lot of advocay about groves here on XML-DEV, but I
don't see anyone (besides Nils Klarlund) who posts here speaking their piece
on the InfoSet comments list
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-infoset-comments/

Forgive my monumental naivete, but are the Groves advocates just so totally
cynical about the W3C process that they don't think it's worthwhile to raise
points such as the one Eliot Kimber makes to the InfoSet people, do you do
so privately and get the same non-response that Nils seems to have gotten,
do you not care what the InfoSet WG recommends, or what?