W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > December 1996

Re: Can we be more concrete?

From: W. Eliot Kimber <eliot@isogen.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 21:05:15 -0900
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961229210500.00711588@uu10.psi.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
Cc: goldfarb@alink.net
I wrote:

>3. A way to represent the relations between the regions of the graphic
>   and the data: HyTime-style hyperlinks, of course. [I say HyTime-style
>   because it doesn't matter whether they actually conform to HyTime or
>   not for the purposes of this discussion, but it happens that my 
>   design does conform].

I see that this isn't quite fair to TEI--a closer study of the actual TEI
spec (section 14) shows that TEI has a Link element distinct from XREF that
is essentially the same as a HyTime ilink.  However, unless I've missed
something (quite likely, given the lateness of the hour), it doesn't appear
that TEI has an exact equivalent of HyTime's clink (although maybe Link can
be used in that way?).

Note that except for the doc/to/from on TEI's XRef vs one addressing
attribute on  HyTime's clink, TEI's approach and HyTime's are very similar,
at least at the level of raw syntax: both provide mechanisms for indirect
addressing from separate linking elements using plain ID references.  In
fact, I'd argue that, when combined with TEI extended pointers as a query
notation, HyTime's design is slightly more convenient because you can use
extended pointers directly from independent links without going through
indirection if you don't otherwise need it--but that's a quibble and
something TEI could add quite easily if it wanted to--in any case, this
isn't a TEI vs. HyTime debate.

In fact, I would hazzard to guess that there is in fact so little
difference between HyTime and TEI on the issues of linking that TEI could
be defined as entirely HyTime conforming (including the use of TEI extended
pointers as a query notation, which is what they are anyway) with little or
no change to its current core definition.  This suggests that both designs
are either fundamentally sound or equally flawed, and I don't think they
are flawed in their fundamental approach to linking and addressing.

Cheers,

E.
--
W. Eliot Kimber (eliot@isogen.com) 
Senior SGML Consulting Engineer, Highland Consulting
2200 North Lamar Street, Suite 230, Dallas, Texas 75202
+1-214-953-0004 +1-214-953-3152 fax
http://www.isogen.com (work) http://www.drmacro.com (home)
"Rats in the morning, rats in the afternoon...if they don't go away, I'll be
re-educated soon..."                 --Austin Lounge Lizards, "1984 Blues"
Received on Sunday, 29 December 1996 23:07:20 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:50 EDT