I agree. Reading the proposals and the discussion on them today I felt that
things were coming together well. Although there is a spectrum of opinion
there seem to be no major ideological gulfs. I think Simon is doing a great
job of pulling this together - it's very challenging because there are
issues we haven't really discussed before. As always it's a dichotomy
between simplicity and functionality. My personal touchstone would be that
- at present - a newcomer to XML who has read the XML 1.0 spec and the
namespace spec would have a reasonable chance of understanding our
proposal. The closer that we map onto them, the easier it will be.
Personally I am very happy with the general tenor of the drafts that have
been offered. Have I got the process right, Simon - two (or more) drafts
will be published and then you will ask questions which may use material
from the drafts. E.g. "do you want NOTATIONs? - see draft 1 for example" -
"do you want AttributeTypes as attributes? (e.g. draft 1) or as content?
(draft 2)".
P.
Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic
net connection
VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary
http://www.venus.co.uk/vhg