Jonathan Borden wrote:

>  What we mean by "high fidelity" is simply this: the *parsed* model,  what is
>  also called a grove, has the capability of saving the document *exactly*,
>  character for character, from what it was parsed.

Okay, this is the one that cares about the 74 occurrences of S, which Simon
insists on calling a red herring?

>  But it is not hard to describe, that is my point. The XML 1.0 production
>  rules create a parse tree which exactly describes the source document, down
>  to the byte. This is what I would call the XML property set, and from this
>  one can subset to one's desire.

Okay, I understand now.  Actually the production-rule level is *not* the
bottom parsing level, because for the most part PE-references have already
been removed.  Internal PEs are not really structural in XML;
it is a mere validity constraint that requires DTD constructs to begin
and end in the same PE, and

	<!ENTITY % element "<!ELEMENT"> 
	%element; FOO EMPTY> 

is a well-formed though not valid external subset.

>  Doesn't it make the most sense to subset from the full description, rather
>  than both add to and subtract from a partial description?

IMHO no.  The correct level to aim at, when doing the job for the first
time for the benefit of the SGML-naive, is the middle useful level, what
you call "structure sensitive".  The question then remains, just what is
useful structure and what is not?  I have done my best to answer that
question.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@[...].com> 
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)