> 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
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/grove.html
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson ak117@freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins@microstar.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/