Jeff Greif wrote:

>   But I think it
>  makes sense to be formal and explicit about the answer to #1 in order to
>  frame the discussions about the others.

Be my guest.  *I* need to get the job done.

>  Whatever formal representation is
>  used, the same formalism would help to highlight the differences between the
>  information content subsets, even if it is not used for presentation in the
>  spec, but is referred to there, even if non-normatively.

There is already an SGML Property Set, and if anyone volunteers to
express the Infoset as a grove plan of it, I will put the grove plan into
the Infoset draft.  (Of course the WG may decide otherwise: I don't
control that.)

-- 

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)