At 12:33 PM -0800 3/4/97, Tim Bray wrote: >4.c The spec will describe some addressing types that we support. Should >we be open-ended and include a way to support other user-defined >locator languages? No. The fact that we are defining generalized markup means that users can define their own locator languages if they want to -- and have the same level of interoperability with the rest of the world (none, without prior arrangement). If they want a way to generalize things, they can use HyTime. For XML linking, no effective purpose is server by knowing that something is a locator, if there's no guarantee that it can be resolved. We should keep XML linking as a specific architecture, not a toolkit. XML is a toolkit, and allows for flexibile private arrangements, so lets keep links simple and only include features that we are wiling to require of xml linking implementors. -- David _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________Received on Friday, 7 March 1997 10:31:58 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:13 EDT