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

Re: Relationship types



Joe English wrote:
> 
> To sum up:  no, "previous" is *not* equal to "goto", regardless of
> whether Netscape and JavaScript implement it that way.

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 
issue.

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 
language.

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 
it clear."

len bullard


References: