• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: Jeff Greif <jgreif@b...>, "xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:01:09 -0400

Jeff Greif wrote:

>  But I think it
> makes sense to be formal and explicit about the answer to #1 in order to
> frame the discussions about the others.

Be my guest.  *I* need to get the job done.

> Whatever formal representation is
> used, the same formalism would help to highlight the differences between the
> information content subsets, even if it is not used for presentation in the
> spec, but is referred to there, even if non-normatively.

There is already an SGML Property Set, and if anyone volunteers to
express the Infoset as a grove plan of it, I will put the grove plan into
the Infoset draft.  (Of course the WG may decide otherwise: I don't
control that.)

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

• References:
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Jeff Greif <jgreif@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by Date: W3C, responsibility (Re: Why the Infoset?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread