• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Attribute Order (Was: Create XML )
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:49:25 -0400
• References: <r01050400-1026-04128CFBA4D611D78EFB0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> jonathan@o... (Jonathan Borden) writes:
> >You are not the first to desire this. Indeed the concept of SGML
> >"Groves" was intended to allow a full fidelity representation via an
> >API of an SGML document (or any arbitrary subset as desired).
>
> I agree that I'm not the first to desire this, but at the same time
> Groves is a lousy comparison.  I'm focusing on concrete characters, only
> then permitting abstraction, while Groves starts with the abstraction
> and lets you reach full fidelity only afterward.
>

Not all "groves" need to be overly abstract (but granted you are correct for
the most part). But for example <a href="http://www.openhealth.org/XSet/"
>XSet</a>  is based _directly_ on the character matching productions of XML
1.0 -- whose terminals are all characters.

My question is how many folks need to care about these details? These
details seem to fall on the wrong side of the 80/20 divide. I am not sure
why I should get excited about attribute order, is there some application
(outside an editor) where this ought be important?

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Attribute Order (Was: Create XML )
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Attribute Order (Was: Create XML )
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Case studies
• Next by Date: RE: Attribute Order (Was: Create XML )
• Previous by thread: Re: Attribute Order (Was: Create XML )
• Next by thread: Re: Attribute Order (Was: Create XML )
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread