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

Re: URLs/MIME only?

From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 22:21:27 -0500
Message-Id: <199612310321.WAA02726@nathaniel.ebt>
To: dgd@cs.bu.edu
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
>   I suppose we could declare a format for "#" strings that encodes our
>location ladder. In fact, doing so would solve a serious user-interface
>problem for prospective browsers -- but I am not so sure that new magic URL
>hackery is really very nice. There is something in this proposal, I think,
>but it doesn't feel right to me yet. For instance

I have proposed something like this many times. I think a real
question here is whether to do it as a fragment (ie. the document is
the primary object) or a pure URL (the element is the object). I tend
toward the latter. What I proposed was a simple format:

   /foo.sgm/4/2/99                 - Child numbers
   /foo.sgm/chap=1/sect=2/para=45  - Typed children

This is easy to read, understand, and is useful for things like
addresses in OODB, and RDB as well.

>I still wish we were using HTTP headers instead of Processing Instructions
>(the one SGML feature I have never even contemplated using).

Amen to that!

I was talking to someone who is planning to implement XML the other
daya, and there is already misunderstanding about what that PI should
do (ie. can it occur in places beyond the header, and if so, what does
it do?).

Headers are headers.... I guess my real avenue for promoting the *.mim
format is to write a *.mim storage object handler for SP....
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 22:23:12 EST

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