Re: Radical cure for BOS confusion (2 CCs deleted).
At 3:48 PM 1/11/97, Terry Allen wrote:
>| I think we need to allow the processing of multiple documents at a time. I
>| don't see that this is hard for any but the simplest of applications...
>| This kind of simplification make ilinks useful only for a few things. No
>| solution to the annotation problem is going to be based on single-document
>| parsing, and that could be one of the real selling points of XML (for
>| people other than Terry, who would rather not have this feature).
>That's a misrepresentation of my point of view and of what I've
>written. I don't want to forbid all annotation functionality to the world,
>I want only to be able to control how my documents may be annotated and
>transcluded, in those cases where I have a legal right to do so. And
>in this I have plenty of company.
No misrepresentation or offense intended. I think I had a mild
misunderstanding (I thought at one point, that you were opposed to
annotation without a mechanism for controlling it), coupled with a tendancy
to type faster than I think.
>On another point, "XML BOS" is no help at all. Hytime invented "BOS";
>let's let BOS remain a Hytime term and avoid having to explain how an
>"XML BOS" differs from a Hytime BOS every time we use the term.
Hey, I already tried that tack, but BOS seems to be sticking. While it
may be confusing to use BOS at all, we must qualify it, if we use it. If
anyone else has a better term to suggest, I'm game, but neither of my other
suggestions (companion documents, document working set) met with any
I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand firstname.lastname@example.org \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________