Xapi-J: proposed interface to Document
ak117 at freenet.carleton.ca
Mon Jul 21 15:38:59 BST 1997
Richard Light writes:
> This is exactly the sort of problem which adopting the 'grove plan'
> approach is meant to deal with. In line with your suggestion, the SGML
> property set starts with the class sgmldoc, or 'SGML document', which is
> 'the parsed SGML document. The root of the grove.'
> In my view, XAPI should be taking advantage of this existing framework
> (and naming conventions) where it is relevant to XML's requirements.
> Didn't someone do a summary of the relevant classes and properties a
> couple of months back?
I agree with Richard. Like SGML, groves can be very complicated or
simple, as required, and XML can easily use a simple model -- just
enforce a single list of supported modules, as XML enforces a single
SGML feature list and declaration.
Why redo all of the work for XML that's already been done in the
HyTime annex and DSSSL standard? I can see no advantage in
re-inventing the wheel for XML: it will simply force software and
documentation to support two different, incompatible approaches.
I do agree that we need more and better documentation on groves, but
we will need to document a proprietary XML approach as well.
For more on the grove support currently available in SP (for full SGML
and XML), see
All the best,
David Megginson ak117 at freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins at microstar.com
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev