[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Grove plans?



At 10:27 AM 12/30/96, len bullard wrote:
>Gavin Nicol wrote:
>>
>> If we go with the link-as-data model (late semantic binding), what we
>> *really* need to define here is
>
>>o  what comprises a grove,

>Already done.  *The* XML grove, no.  Is there such a thing, or is a
>grove for XML plus a grove and or grove plan for each XML application
>needed?

We will have to define an XML grove (plan?) for DSSSL support, but there
should be only _one_ grove (plan?) for XML. That was the import of all the
RS/RE discussion. We want _one_ abstract syntax. The "benefit" of more than
one is the ability to handle SGML's confusing parsing model (which we have
already simplified) and the ability to mystify people with a bunch of new
terms for old concepts.


I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
_________________________________________
David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________