RE: is that a fork in the road?

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

Right.  The point I want to make 
is that XML and these languages per 
se as "simplified" bits required that 
long complicated bit that came before 
to figure out which bits were simple, 
which 20 does what 80 of the work.  

We are not forking.  We are on the 
road we've been in for a long long 
time.  We are a lot closer to some 
goals, and others will always move 
as soon as we get to the others.  
That is why they pay us the big bucks.

"Playing croquet while stoned can be an extra 
beautiful trip. Sometimes you think you are a 
member of English aristocracy.  Sometimes 
you think you are GOD!" - A Child's Garden of Grass

The pipeline idea in the speech (good 
speech BTW, I was hoping for visuals) 
is the right idea.  My rule of thumb 
here is if an idea is completely new, 
then it has about a 10% chance on this 
round.  If it is an idea we've seen 
before, revised perhaps, cleaner perhaps, 
then its viability goes up considerably.  
If we are on the fourth or fifth pass, 
the idea is too hard or something political 
happened and we might want to quickly 
get this one done or drop it.

Before we lament the complexity (We are whining!) 
or really sidetrack, we can stop and 
look at the path we came down (you did 
that in the speech) and then see if the 
next steps are obvious or not obvious.

Can we safely say:

1. If it fails the parse, it isn't 
XML (draconian bases).

2. The base infoSet maps to the 
first level.

3.  Each step afterwards is one 
one has to choose.  XML Schema 
is an obvious step because it adds 
type information. 

What alternative steps for three are there 
other than the DTD?  What alternative properties 
are added in these steps?  Then we can 
get around to naming the steps.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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