• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 09:10:03 -0600

Ok.  I don't see a problem here other than the W3C perhaps 
needing or wanting to do as was done with schemas 
and create a single official specification for the 
rule system.  Schemas are ready for prime time.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...]

Yes. That is my point (in answer to Len's question),
   * that grammars and path-based rule systems are not equally expressive;
   * that grammars and path-based rule systems are not a subset, either of
      the other; and
   * that the structures that grammars can handle which  path-based rule
     systems cannot are less useful and of dubious merit (because there 
     are structures present which are not labelled and therefore
inaccessible 
     to standard API-based systems that
     just use the infoset; to say these structures are significant puts us 
     on the slippery slope to PSVI.)

• Prev by Date: RE: XML versus Relational Database
• Next by Date: RE: XML versus Relational Database
• Previous by thread: RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Next by thread: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread