• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>, Sean McGrath <sean@d...>,"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:04:07 -0500

Why?  Precisely why?

Before we add one more stack of paper to the 
already too dense stack of markup technical 
specifications, we really need a defense for 
it. 

"This is too hard" is just too dumb to 
hear one more time in this saga.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]

Now that more
time has past, it is even more clear that while the concepts of the grove,
property sets and grove plans are still important, the particular syntax
specified in their implementation is not viable for widespread adoption.

I think the problem is that the SGML Property Set appears to have been
designed for machine, not human, consumption. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XSet, an XML Property Set, was: re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • RE: XSet, an XML Property Set, was: re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: XSet, an XML Property Set, was: re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by Date: Re: Remember to RELAX (was RE: Are there still a lot of people usingDTD)
• Previous by thread: DTDs aren't going away even when schemas arrive (was Re: Are therestill a lot of people using DTD rather than schema?)
• Next by thread: RE: XSet, an XML Property Set, was: re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread