- From: W. Eliot Kimber <eliot@isogen.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 22:31:31 -0900
- To: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>, Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Cc: David Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>, w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 07:27 PM 1/7/97 CST, Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote: >On Tue, 31 Dec 1996 12:13:43 -0500 Gavin Nicol said, quoting Eliot >Kimber: >>>The only problem with this approach is the same one HyTime and DSSSL faced: >>>what objects make up the nodes of the tree you're addressing. We currently >>>have three different tree views of SGML documents in established specs: >>> >>>1. DSSSL default grove plan: characters and elements are children of elements >>>2. HyTime default grove plan: pelements and elements are children of elements >>>3. TEI implicit grove plan: elements only are children of elements > >I'm confused here. It has been said several times in the SGML WG >discussion (by whom, I cannot currently recall, but in this instance by >Eliot Kimber) that in TEI extended pointers, 'pseudo-elements' are not >children of elements, only subelements are children. That's my fault. Something I read, either in Lou's summary or the full spec led me to believe that only elements were counted for tree addressing. But Steve D. and you both pointed out it was a mistake. I appologize for any confusion I may have caused. This means that TEI and HyTime both use the same default grove plan (at least more or less, if not exactly). Cheers, E. -- W. Eliot Kimber (eliot@isogen.com) Senior SGML Consulting Engineer, Highland Consulting 2200 North Lamar Street, Suite 230, Dallas, Texas 75202 +1-214-953-0004 +1-214-953-3152 fax http://www.isogen.com (work) http://www.drmacro.com (home) "Rats in the morning, rats in the afternoon...if they don't go away, I'll be re-educated soon..." --Austin Lounge Lizards, "1984 Blues"
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 1997 23:37:03 UTC