W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > January 1997

Re: Multi-headed indirect links

From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:49:06 +0000
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970121194906.00698294@mail.u-net.com>
To: dgd@cs.bu.edu (David G. Durand), w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 12:43 21/1/97 -0500, David G. Durand wrote:
>
>I wanted to be quiet, but this is a gross misrepresentation of the state of
>affairs. 

A very deliberate one:-)

>The claim is that you have a syntax (entity references) that will
>give you the indirection that you want. While it's not elegant (it's
>actually kinda yucky), 

To see how yucky try applying it to the four or five cases I asked about
specifically - the bit of my message everyone is careful to ignore.

>You have not presented anything that you can do with
>one syntax that you cannot do with the other.

Thats the difference between being elegant and being yucky - the same effect
of keeping off the sun can be acheived with silk or rags:-)

>The issue of the locsrc is a different one, but if we can include an
>equivalent of the "BASE" attribute (and I think we should), then we can do
>the entitized equivalent of locsrc without the additional implementation
>overhead of locsrc.

I have pointed out in other messages that BASE fails for multiheaded links.
Show me how to use this idea with the examples I quoted. 

Incidentally why are the entitized equivalents of locsrce so much easier to
implement than pointing to a separate element with an ID?
----
Martin Bryan, The SGML Centre, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK 
Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029   WWW home page: http://www.u-net.com/~sgml/
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 1997 14:57:40 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:55 EDT