Re: Anchors Aweigh
Gavin Nicol wrote:
> Len writes:
> >> I never said I saw a set of IDL interfaces as being a the desired
> >> output from this WG, and ideed, even quired whether it was in our
> >> charter to do anything about semantic definition.
> >I will be interested to see if we can avoid it forever.
> >A <a href= has a behavior (goto). A target= is behavior (get/put).
> >No stylesheet is involved. An <embed is a behavior, etc.
> >Agreed these are a particular application's behavior, but
> >they are the common things done with links and what any
> >Web user will expect to do with XML links.
> This is actually a very important point, and one that you repeat a
> number of times in various forms.
> My personal view is that a link definition is just the same as any
> other data until interpreted, and that we can separate definition and
> definition of interpretation.
My definition is the same. What will be needed is the definition
of interpretation such that two XML systems do it somewhat the
same way. For that, we could use object definitions
nicely, because it fits well with EAPIs and communicates
to implementors precisely what is needed. My feeling, and only
that because I've seen no proposals, is that using DSSSL for this
may be just as hard or harder.
For independent links, my concept is more like the catalog as
an independent file (entity) which the document instance has
a pointer to. Easy to explain, easy to use, and already in use
in exisiting applications for SGML and stylesheets.