[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Types and Context
- From: Sean McGrath <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:04:45 +0100
> > As I understand it, schema-supporting functions would work on a PSVI.
> > If the extension functions were defined in terms of the PSVI, then the
> > schema language (or rather the schema syntax) that we used would be
> > independent. For example, we could come up with a simplified syntax
> > that used the same conceptual schema components as those used in XML
> > Schema, which would create a PSVI that holds the same information.
>sure. what we still need is a processable incarnation of the "PSVI". no such
>thing exists today.
Canonical Grove Representation.
I point this out, not because I think groves and infosets should be
mainstream topics of conversation for XML technologists, just to
point out that this is old territory in the SGML world.
I thought this stuff was off the deep end for SGML and I certainly
think this stuff is waaay off the deep end for the vast majority of
real world XML applications. I'm a tad horrified to see the PSVI rise
dramatically in prominence.
Its all getting way too complicated you know, mumble, mumble, my
ancient limbs are sore, my eyes are week, scratch, cough,
splutter, mumble, mumble.