Re: Hyperlinks: 3.3, agree with Martin; new req. 3.4, self-revealing links.
Martin Bryan wrote:
> Web users stick to HTML - why should they change to XML if XML's linking
> mechanism is no better than HTML's. Many of us web users are screaming at
> W3C to improve linking so we can manage our links better, and so that we can
> offer sensible hierarchies of possible information providers. If they don't
> improve HTML soon some of us are going to have to find an alternative. It
> would be nice if that alternative could be XML.
Agreed. Unless we get a capability that is clearly superior to the
current web situation, the alternative is to apply other current
systems which are already superior and simply adopt protocols which
can support them. SGML/XML should offer a set of hyperlinking and
location models (yes, location models) which enable us to build up
to a more capable system by implementing each part as needed.
You won't oust HTML. Forget that. At the end of this, HTML must
also be expressed as XML. It is already expressed as SGML so
it is XML that must make a case for itself.
A victory indicates someone wins and someone loses. If that is
what you want, you are not designing a system; you are choosing
victims. Subsetting HyTime (what it was designed for) is a better
alternative than adopting it in non-conforming pieces then claiming
to have solved the problem by superior means. So far, I have
read no real objections to what Eliot is proposing. IMO, HyTime
is baroque and has undergone many transformations that while
making it stronger, have left many of us bewildered about what
it is. A position paper that proposes how HyTime could be
applied to XML hyperlinking is needed. Simply punting to the
stylesheet revives the DSSSL vs The World wars carefully put
to bed by wiser members of the SGML community a year ago.