Re: BOS confusion (analysis; suggestion to resolve Newcomb/Bryan conflict)

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

>   So I suggest:
>   1. We have identified a clear requirement for XML documents to be able
>to idnetify other documents that need to be processed along with them
>(mostly for ilink resolution).

The essential requirement
>   2. The term BOS is not that useful in describing browser behavior, as it
>is unfamiliar outside of HyTime, and the HyTime notion can be applied to
>the web in at least two distinct ways. I suggest that we use a new term
>"working document set" to mean a set of documents that need to be processed
>together, and within which ilinks in all the documents are supposed to be
>accessible. Applications may mess with the working document set, under
>arbitrary user control; but an author can augment the browser's working set
>for a particalar document by declaring "companion documents", which will be
>added to the working document set when that particular document is

Nice term - could be usefully abbreviated to WORKDOCS. Authors could add
COMDOCS, better still, USEFULDOCS (i.e. "useful companion documents")
>   3. The notion of explicit "hub documents" is foreign to the web, and
>easy to synthesize from the "companion document" mechanism, so we might as
>well leave it be.

If you mean "drop it" I concur.

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