(as a note to the proofreaders, although i've left the 's' word out here, i,
as a rule, prefer unapproved etomological license to licensed grammatical
transgression. despite what my oed's editors may have read.)
Paul Prescod wrote:
> ...
>
> So I'm convinced that the XML WG believes (unknowingly!) that XML has
> semantics even as they deny it. The concrete step that they could take to
> prove that I am wrong is to require the DOM to be defined in terms of
> XML's syntax instead of the tree abstraction.
>