• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 20:22:05 -0400

At 05:57 PM 8/2/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>> What we need is a common language for the specification of XML subsets
>> (grove plans), from the full fidelity XML property set.
>
>I think the idea of creating a formalism for specifying subsets of the
Infoset
>is a very plausible one, and if the Infoset ever gets out the door I will
>think about the problem.

I think I'm with Jonathan - his separating grove plans from the 'full
fidelity XML property set' seems like the right direction.  I'm not quite
sure if John Cowan is planning here to subset the Infoset further, or to
describe the Infoset as a subset from the ISO SGML property set...

I like option 2 better there.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• References:
  • RE: Why the Infoset?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - Final ReviewDraft)
• Next by Date: ANN: RE: Mechanics of mapping relational data into XML
• Previous by thread: Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by thread: Re: groves vs. Groves was: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread