Re: Relationship types
Joe English wrote:
> To sum up: no, "previous" is *not* equal to "goto", regardless of
We have also implemented a history list. It is not a LIFO
stack. Click on it, and one "goes to" the target. Previous
and Next do not equate to a history list. It is a goto, a
gosub, or a spawn. Simple state space management. A nice
thing to have because without it, you will not have interoperation
except for where a specific processsing specification and
specification language is used. And you have to both have
them and cart them around if you don't.
Y'all want DSSSL. Fine.
Good luck with the lisp programmers. The rest of us
have C++ programmers. They will write their own stylesheets
and we can compete over that. Marvelous. What can
be done with XML can be done with SGML and no one has
to get a consensus for that. Just a market.
This is going overboard. Predefined linktypes do not belong in
a normative section of XML. In a non-normative appendix,
sure, have at. We can ignore that. Put them in a DTD,
and they shouldn't be ignored. On the other hand, they
must be defined axiomatically or by function else you
will end up with the same problem experienced by the
MIL-PRF-87269 DTD implementors with respect to the
abuse of the type attribute.
BTW: previous and next were declared in the early IADS
and IDE/AS DTDs if the author wished to use them.
But we took the requirement out to use them because
a right mouse button and a history stack are adequate,
and frames defaulted to their linear order. So do
pages. So do infoContainers. It's an application
Simply give us a way to declare that it is a link,
and what type it is. Otherwise, this is just the
ERB becoming the HTML WG all over again and at
least they admitted they were creating an application
To paraphrase Eliot when bailing out, "I've
said all I have to say, and if it is not clear, then
obviously I can't express it well enough to make