- From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 13:15:43 -0500
- To: cbullard@hiwaay.net
- CC: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM, w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
>> Actually, this would be a *very* interesting approach to the >> problem. We could model the entire web in IDL. Great for compatibiliy >> (objects addressable as CORBA objects seems like a real win to me). > >True, but there is also the Active X model. MS or no, it is clear >that a stripped down COM model has a lot to offer and has a lot of >support both in existing objects and in knowledgeable users. COM doesn't scale well to distributed systems. CORBA/OpenDoc is a better model. >What I would like to see from the object-designers on the list is a >rational comparison of XML hyperlinking goals and how these >fit inside Active-X or Corba, what is apples/oranges, etc. It >is likely I am conflating layers here. I don't think so. In many ways, defining links as objects is a good way to start, because then you can work back to the representation required at the protocol and definition ends of the system. >What I was aiming at was the link semantics of the XML handler. >We more or less know what the current crop of desktops are doing >and we have listed those. Sure, this is a good *starting* point.
Received on Friday, 27 December 1996 13:17:29 UTC