- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:19:38 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
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 \__________________________
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 12:13:02 UTC