Subject: RE: DSSSL engine in LISP? From: "Frank A. Christoph" <christo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:21:12 +0900 |
Joe English wrote: > Frank A. Christoph <christo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think the choice to use the word "grove" was made because, in > general, a > > DSSSL implementation is supposed to be able to take as input several > > documents at once: thus, there are several trees. "Forest" is the more > > common term here, but people in the SGML world seem to have something > > against using existing jargon. > > Actually, I think it's because a "grove" is a highly specialized > type of tree. "Tree" can refer to almost any rooted hierarchical > data structure, but a "grove" has certain specific features, e.g., > each node has a list of named properties at most one of which may > be designated the "principal content" of the node, it may have > "reference nodes" which point across tree boundaries, it may have > an associated grove plan, et cetera. Well, this is a silly thing to argue about, but, though there is undoubtedly something to what you say, it does not sit well with the fact that the non-technical meaning of "grove" is essentially a collection of trees, nor that the term "tree" is used in the standard to refer to something substantially more specific than "any rooted hierarchical data structure." Besides, "grove" is a common enough word that it would be a poor choice to name something so concrete and specific. --FC DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: DSSSL engine in LISP?, Joe English | Thread | why it is called a grove, Russell Steven Shawn |
Re: ESIS, Groves and XML, Daniel Mahler | Date | RE: OpenJade and Debian, Frank A. Christoph |
Month |