Re: More proposals -- and some critical implementation issues

At 13:31 30/12/96 -0500, David G. Durand wrote:

>Punting was really a joke, referring to the fact that we are letting the
>DTD slide in a case where it seems to be required. Of course its the
>natural way to solve the problem, I suggested it, didn't I?

I thought that it was sufficient to say that if you transmitted the DTD and
expect the browser to parse that then you could define a fixed XML attribute
in the DTD but if you did not transmit the DTD (because the browser could
not process it) then you had to add the XML attribute to all instances of
elements that are to exhibit linkedness. The idea of leaving it to the style
sheet to say "this is a link" appals me as I cannot manage my links properly
this way. (I could live with the link definition being defined as an SGML
link attribute, but I suspect that would bring a ton of brickbats on my head!)

Martin Bryan, The SGML Centre, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK 
Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029   WWW home page: http://www.u-net.com/~sgml/