Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:28:06 -0500
It means "dumb idea in our opinions". Ok.
Everyone has opinions.
Not ignoring it Simon, asking for explicit
statements of requirements, then a debate
on the choice of solutions. Again, Cowan
et al bloodied themselves on this and
I won't lightly support anything that
breaks the records of authority unless
the clarity of those statements is superior
to what is in effect. Grove plans are a means,
not an end. XML is a means, not an end.
So, now there are three different means on
the table to get a solution.
1. Grove plan per ISO property sets
2. RDFS and transformations
3. Quick ammendment to extend appendix
and put back omitted items.
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: Why the Infoset?
At 03:29 PM 8/2/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>""Groves are the greatest thing I've
> never seen or completely understood."
>with the possible exception of Architectural Forms."
That doesn't imply not invented here - it merely implied never seen in use.
The alternative, which you seem bent on ignoring, is expanding the list of
information items to include more of XML's features. I could probably live
with getting back items 1, 2, and 8 from the list in Appendix C:
4, 9, and 10 are also intriguing, and there may be those who'd like the
entire list back. Some general discussion of which whitespace is
considered significant might also be worthwhile.
No groves, but not exactly a revolution either. It'd be a change to those
who consider DTDs throwaways, mysteriously burned away during parsing, but
that's about it.