Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Sean McGrath <email@example.com>,"Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 11:08:31 -0500
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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.
>>I await the requirements. The infoset looks useful as it is.
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.
>>I contend that is first, a lack of understanding of the requirements for
one and two, and second, possibly a peculiarity of the social history of the
We keep saying we can do a better job and keep discovering we did not
completely understand the job to be done.
5) Because the ISO specifications are just too dense. No offense.
>> None taken. I didn't write them and I have had the same problem.
On the other hand, there is a whole industry and body of people
capable of de-densifying them and existing publications that do that
already. I have never been turned down by their authors when
asking publically or privately and politely for a simplifying
explanation. My experience is that they are a most cooperative
group if possibly less eager than they once were. Exhaustion
depletes honorable intent.
AFAIK, we can adopt property sets and grove plans largely unchanged if that
is the *easiest* way to get the job done.
>> This should be determined.
Please remind me, why did XLink get written, rather than adopting HyTime?
>> Ask the Director of the W3C, Tim Berners-Lee.