Subject: Grove plans?
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (David G. Durand)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:19:38 -0500
From email@example.com Mon Dec 30 12: 13:02 1996
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________