xml-dev - Re: The Power of Groves

["W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@isogen.com>]

Michael Champion wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@isogen.com>
> >
> > 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/

For my part, it's lack of time and confidence in David Megginson's
technical and political abilities. I figure that if the right thing can
be done, he can do it and anything I might say would probably only make
his job harder. I know that David understands groves and he also
understands the realities of the W3C process.

Cheers,

E.