Re: More proposals -- and some critical implementation issues
Subject: Re: More proposals -- and some critical implementation issues
From: email@example.com (David G. Durand)
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 13:12:26 -0500
From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Dec 31 13: 05:53 1996
At 11:55 PM 12/30/96, Gavin Nicol wrote:
>>So, given that, I propose for discussion:
>>XML linking architecture is indicated by an attribute:
>>We have AFs something like this:
>><!attlist (whatever) -XML-ARCH-LINK (none | clink | ilink | location) "none">
>Playing the devil's advocate....
>Assuming that link behaviour *will* be put out into stylesheets, we must
>ask if we need any fixed forms at all (ie. the sylesheet can decide
>what comprises a link, and what does not, and what the structure of
>a link definition needs to be in order to be semantically interpretable).
>I would say that for interoperability would be the main benefit.
Experience with solely executable link specifications (Hypercard is the
canonical horrible example) has shown that it makes analysis somewhere
between difficult (got to read code to find out what it does), to
impossible (this is a turing-complete problem, and thus uncomputable, in
So I think we need declarations so we don't have to write analysis
programs to determine whether code such as:
If (subroutine to determine that Goldbach's conjecture is true) then
goto document X else ignore click.
is a link, or not!
If we hve such computation links they should be a special case, rather
than the only case, so that common links are easily processable.
I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand email@example.com \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________