[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Radical cure for BOS confusion



At 3:16 PM 1/9/97, Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote, truly:
>I think the key simplification of Jon's proposal lies in saying the XML
>BOS (by which I mean set of documents for which the browser is
>responsible, in the sense of scanning them for links pointing into the
>document currently on view) may be given explicitly in the document
>itself.
> I think both David Durand (who like Jon wishes to divorce this
>specification from the entity declarations at the head of the document)
>and Steve Newcomb (who does not, as far as I have been able to follow),
>will agree this is a Good Thing.

   Yes...

   I'm not even that dedicated to the notion of allowing "recursive"
inclusion of documents in the BOS. I have like it for two reasons:

   1. It is a natural answer to the question "What happens if my companion
has a companion?"

   2. It makes it easier to implement the kind link management structures
that Martin and Steve N. seem to want, by allowing a document serving the
function of a "BOS directory" to be shared between individual documents.

>In sum:
>  - prohibition of ilinks in normal documents seems unnecessary and
>unfortunate
Indeed!
>  - prohibition of ilinks in normal documents is easily evaded anyway
Fer sure.
>  - ilinks are not the only kind of external link I'd like my browser to
>know about:  I'd also like to be able to know which portions of the
>document I'm reading are targets of alinks from other documents I am
>interested in -- so I want to be able to include ordinary documents
>in the XML-BOS.

Yes, exactly!


I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
_________________________________________
David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________