Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>,Sean McGrath <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>,firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 11:07:14 -0400
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Why? Precisely why?
> Before we add one more stack of paper to the
> already too dense stack of markup technical
> specifications, we really need a defense for
1) Because there is a real need to be able to precisely define a subsetting
mechanism for XML.
2) Because we need a full fidelity logical description of XML documents.
3) Because the XML Infoset is already 90+% if the way there.
4) Because although groves and property sets are great in concept, the
implementation has been zippo, mostly because few people understand what
they are intended to accomplish.
5) Because the ISO specifications are just too dense. No offense.
AFAIK, we can adopt property sets and grove plans largely unchanged if that
is the *easiest* way to get the job done.
Please remind me, why did XLink get written, rather than adopting HyTime?
The Open Healthcare Group