• From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 20:51:46 -0500

I think the poster was right.  Groves are neat but 
essentially are just one more of a set of formal 
means for rigorously defining an encoding.  Not that 
that is a trivial capability, but certainly not a 
mysterious one.  I am surprised, given what I 
read in the schema primer and the SOAP spec 
that groves hasn't been adopted.  It seems that 
SOAP depends heavily on schema for its own 
definitions.  The question is, are those definitions 
are strong as the ones produced using groves?

len


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• References:
  • Schema Validation in MSXML
    • From: "Mike Sharp" <msharp@l...>

• Prev by Date: Fwd: Re: PowerPoint Presentation
• Next by Date: Re: Bullard bounce back
• Previous by thread: Schema Validation in MSXML
• Next by thread: RE: Schema Validation in MSXML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread