Re: Relationship types
At 4:35 PM 1/23/97, Murray Altheim wrote:
>Agreed. But the idea of establishing only the binding between an open
>namespace of elements/attributes and an open namespace of
>presentational directives in a document which we may call a stylesheet, and
>not the specific GI names, etc. is what I thought a meta-language was
>about. Once we begin to specify specific, named relationships, we are into
>the realm of DTDs and application conventions, ala RFC 1866.
This is correct. What I think Eliot was saying, and I _am_ saying is that
it _may_ be worth defining some simple roles, non-normatively, to help
people understand what they are for, and how to use them. It's an idea that
some on this list seem not yet to have figured out, and it might help
people to see it in action.
It might also be pernicious to try to kick-start things in this way, for
linguistic and social reasons, as well as for the obvious reason that we
will probably make some incorrect decisions as to good link-types, and this
might simply get in the way of our successors.
Personally, I'd rather see effort made in making some good examples that
show how link and anchor typing can do things beyond the reach of "goto"
I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand email@example.com \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________