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

Re: SGML WG status

From: altheim <altheim@mehitabel.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 17:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM, tallen@sonic.net
Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <libSDtMail.9705061722.14332.altheim@mehitabel>
[...]
> |   - linkage to behaviors
[...]
> | 
> | Feel free to say whatever you want about these subjects, but please
> | keep the debate off this list until we have the next xml-lang and
> | xml-link drafts out of the way.
> 
> I do want to ask why these have been added to the list.  What is
> the rationale in terms of the SGML ERB's mission statement, why
> must victory be declared on these fronts before the group's work
> is done, and is this an open-ended effort?
> 
> As a strawman for discussion, I'll claim that specific facilities
> such as strong data typing (and so far as I'm concerned, XML-link)
> should be specified in only a general way, so that the application
> developer can plug in whatever specific schemes he wishes.  Why
> does XML need to do more?  Is XML going to grow into a specific
> application?  What is the long-term agenda, and is that agenda
> on our agenda or is it up to the W3C members?

Well, I'm not sure if there was any consensus opinion, but in the ICADD/WAI
group that Mike Paciello is chairing for HTML accessibility we today
discussed the need to create assertions about a document in metadata that
would associate XML markup with an author-created lexicon in order to
allow user agents and users alike to determine semantic meaning. We used
part numbers and legal disclaimers as examples.

This is information that definitely falls outside of stylesheets (it may not
even have any active processing or presentation associated with the markup),
and is such a wide-open problem (a lexicon is inherently individual to an 
author) that the only practical solution for a meta-language is to provide
the mechanism, not a specific lexicon.

Murray Maloney pointed out that people have been trying to deal with this
one for years, and have also been 'punting for years.' [Murray, sorry for
the paraphrase] Can we afford to punt? Maybe it should be shelved for current
discussion, but shouldn't it eventually be pulled off the shelf and *then*
punted? 

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML Grease Monkey                    <altheim@eng.sun.com>
Member of Technical Staff, Tools Development & Support
Sun Microsystems, 2550 Garcia Ave., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94043 USA
         "Give a monkey the tools and he'll build a typewriter."
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 1997 20:23:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:26 UTC