- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 09:22:15 -0600
- To: "W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@isogen.com>
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
W. Eliot Kimber wrote: > > At 07:00 AM 12/21/96 -0600, Len Bullard wrote: > IMO, HyTime > >is baroque and has undergone many transformations that while > >making it stronger, have left many of us bewildered about what > >it is. > > HyTime has not changed in its fundamentals. Appart from some > much-needed design refinements, the only real difference between > old HyTime and new HyTime is the grove-based underpinings by which > everything (including DSSSL and SGML) are now defined. But the scope > of application, what it does, and the way it does it, have not changed. I agree that this is so. What I mean is that in all of the name changes, new descriptions, and the the grove-based underpinnings (which are needed), it is like starting over in ferreting out the details. It isn't a bad thing, but I understand the frustration of some with this. I welcome the paper you are working on. After watching the HyTime process for some time, my intuition is that any attempt to do what HyTime does results in HyTime-Yet-Again. So, as XML is a simplification of SGML to make it more friendly to the current Internet pipes (hollow logs instead of PVC) and base of application writers, a similar simplification of HyTime should do the job. Umm... do we know what the job is yet? :-) len
Received on Saturday, 21 December 1996 10:22:10 UTC