xml-dev - Re: The Power of Groves

[Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
> 
> Good. Let me stress that when I use the term "groves", I usually mean
> "some technical solution that satisfies the requirements we tried to
> satisfy with groves as defined in 10744". I have no long-term investment
> in groves *as defined in 10744*. I would be perfectly happy if the W3C
> developed from scratch some new way of doing what we did with groves. My
> concern is with satisfying requirements, not perpetuating a particular
> solution.

Then based on the results of the intial conditions of this thread, let's
see where 
we go with this.  What I think we are seeing in the first rounds 
is the requirement for the unified framework of definitions.  We know 
XML doesn't meet that requirement.  We know we have other language 
communities struggling with multiple encodings.  As soon as I get 
to the bottom of the stack of tonight's mail, I will post the 
promised condensed version of the VRML definitions.  As I review 
them, it is interesting that they are not far off from groves 
as explained thus far.  On the other hand, things are done in 
the language (eg, Protos) which are interesting in the means 
of extensibility created and the compromises that have to be 
made to do this.  Particularly, VRML is optimized to make an 
execution model work in which time is fuzzy definition.

len