- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 09:20:39 GMT
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
David Durand writes: > Thank you... Those of us in the business of being broken records appreciate > another voice joining us in... You're welcome -- it's not lack of interest, just lack of time. > >. . . although we need to clearly > >distinguish between > > > >1) intrinsic XML semantics for links, i.e. termini, participation, etc.; > >2) XML Application (in the strict SGML sense of 'application') > > semantics, e.g. the bilingual alignment example above; > >3) Implemented application behaviour > > > >we are only in the business of specifying (1). > > And we need to specify clearly what is involved in binding 1 -> 2 and 3. Agreed. Particularly what properties of links are available to rendering and processing (small 'a') applications. Jon mentioned history a few days ago -- the thin end of a long wedge. > That is the effort currently called stylesheet that needs a different name, > desperately. Just for kicks how about using > > "Display and processing spec" > > to replace the linking +formatting language I keep referring to as a style > sheet? How about "rendering and processing spec", although my guess is that processing beyond rendering is too open-ended to be much more than a name for a problem. ht
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 1997 04:20:45 UTC