[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Types and Context
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Sean McGrath <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:42:49 -0500
It probably should be a mainstream topic because
it already is. Existence proof and all that.
What is wrong with what Jonathan did with
groves for XML? Instead of gnoshing SGML,
maybe XML should say, "cool, let's do that"
and move on. I am only horrified if as
Simon and others note, options for post-XML
processing become the definition of XML
processors de jure.
New names for old things don't improve the
design; they change the authority.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Sean McGrath [mailto:email@example.com]
>sure. what we still need is a processable incarnation of the "PSVI". no
>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.