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

Re: Can we be more concrete?

From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:08:46 -0600
Message-ID: <32C8052E.7633@hiwaay.net>
To: "W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@isogen.com>
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
> 
> At 10:37 AM 12/30/96 -0600, len bullard wrote:
> 
> >of name to pixel coordinates.  What the calling document passes is
> >the name, perhaps the handler name, and a command string telling
> >the handler to open up at the image zoomed to that region.
> >
> >Right now, to do this sort of thing, we keep two different sets of
> >independent links (e.g, structs).  One for the image handler's
> >view of a document set; one for the SGML handler's document set.
> >What we need is for these to be one set.
> 
> In the HyTime model, these would be location addresses, not links.  

yes.  Pixel addresses are absolute locations in concrete documents.

> I'm not
> sure I understand the point of your comment: I thought my proposal was
> sufficient (not that I was trying to propose a useful scheme for doing
> image addressing--it was just a quick example).

It is.  I wanted to point out what was missing.  As soon as pixel 
coordinates are separated from content, the origin is needed for 
complete independence, or the maintainer makes assumptions about 
the image notation handler.  IOW, sometimes, the notation declaration 
*is* needed and I am getting confused if the notation of the 
content type (e.g, the tiff, gif, VRML is indicated).
 
> Certainly the image map could be another document, e.g.:
> 
> <!DOCTYPE ImageMap SYSTEM "imagemap.dtd" [
>  <!ENTITY image SYSTEM "http://www.ti.com/parts/images/foo.gif" NDATA GIF >
> ]>
> <image image=image>
>  <area id=area1 ...>
>  ...
> </image>
> 
> If I understand you correctly, the "name" in your discussion would be the
> ID of the areas in the image map document.

Can be, but it could just be a label.  Whatever, it is unique in 
some known namespace.

BTW, are you assuming the use of a URL resolver?  In the #prefix
convention, 
a lot of strings are appended to the locator, and that assumes one knows 
what strings are available. So, for management's sake, how does the 
example look if one is pointing out of a document instance into the 
independent link set document using a URL? Is it as simple as appending 
the name of the linkset document plus the  link id to the URL with the 
proviso that the linkset document handler knows to goto/gosub/spawn 
the target?  Sounds like a catalog.  From a management perspective, 
BOS management is catalog management and all the document instance 
needs to know is the name of its catalog.

"Stylesheet is a processor specification":  I like that.  Style is 
overloaded like everything else. That distinction is good where 
for some XML systems, they might not wish to also send a stylesheet.

len
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 13:08:57 EST

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