Re: locating capabilities vs. anchor awareness
Subject: Re: locating capabilities vs. anchor awareness
From: "W. Eliot Kimber" <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:14:04 -0900
From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Dec 23 16: 15:45 1996
X-Hobby: low-tide clam sexing
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
At 12:28 PM 12/23/96 -0800, Derek Denny-Brown wrote:
>How difficult the anchor awareness problem is depends on the richness of the
>locator model intended to be used. David (and others) requested the ability
>to locate data which has no ID. How far do people want this to go? A full
>query model a.k.a. HyTime, where anything can be located and if HyTime can't
>then you just use an external handler with QueryLoc (which used to be
>NotLoc, for "Notational locator").
This is a good point and we shouldn't lose sight of it. I tend to assume
that queries will be used for addressing, both because it's right powerful
and because the Web allows it today. But Derek's point is well taken:
limiting our addressing power makes anchor-awareness much more tractible.
In my hyperworld view [sorry Terry] I assume queries are allowed and
therefore assume that there will be a class of anchors for which
pre-knowledge of anchorness is unknowable. My impression is that Steve N.
tends to the opposite world view, in which all anchors should be (and,
ideally, must be) known in advance. I think these two views reflect
focuses on different use scenarios, not fundamental differences about what
hypertext is or how things like HyTime should work.
W. Eliot Kimber (email@example.com)
Senior SGML Consulting Engineer, Highland Consulting
2200 North Lamar Street, Suite 230, Dallas, Texas 75202
+1-214-953-0004 +1-214-953-3152 fax
http://www.isogen.com (work) http://www.drmacro.com (home)
"Rats in the morning, rats in the afternoon...if they don't go away, I'll be
re-educated soon..." --Austin Lounge Lizards, "1984 Blues"