[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, "xml-dev@xml.org" <xml-dev@xml.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:57:45 -0400
Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Let me rephrase your objection: You are (correctly) objecting to the
> development of an XML grove plan (XML Infoset) in the absense of the
> specification of the XML property set.
If anyone thinks that an XML property set distinct from the ISO SGML Property
Set ought to exist, I most heartily urge him to put his money (and time, and blood,
and sweat) where his mouth is. "Take my job....please!"
As things stand, I have an imperfect-but-usable approximation that omits
many things irrecoverably.
> What we need is a common language for the specification of XML subsets
> (grove plans), from the full fidelity XML property set.
I think the idea of creating a formalism for specifying subsets of the Infoset
is a very plausible one, and if the Infoset ever gets out the door I will
think about the problem.
--
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
|
