xml-dev - RE: Why the Infoset?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

The answer is in response to slamming both 
groves and arch forms without taking time to 
understand either.  In that case, the needs 
don't matter; the source matters.  NIH.

So far Borden is doing the best job of 
stating the needs and he is willing to 
entertain any working solution.  He also 
wants a shorter development cycle I think.

Groves are one possible way to meet the 
stated needs.  What are the others?  Do 
they have tools?  Are they working solutions 
for other applications?  Toyz is Toyz but 
the infoSet is real and there today.  Groves 
are real and there today.  Apply the 
Berners Lee test (paraphrased): if two groups that never 
met had the same problem, would they come 
up with roughly the same solution?

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:32 PM
To: xml-dev@xml.org
Subject: RE: Why the Infoset?


At 01:15 PM 8/2/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>And now possibly the InfoSet.
>
>NIH:  Weird how that works.

I don't think it's just a case of NIH.

I think we're talking about real cases of conflicting needs. 

There have been plenty of legitimate reasons voiced for all perspectives on
this issue, and I don't think it's merely a case of not wanting to play
with other people's toys.