Re: Relationship Taxonomy Questions
At 3:19 PM 1/23/97, Len Bullard wrote:
>My point is simple: no normative linktypes. A way to express a
>linktype is already available. It is an element type. Will these
>interoperate? Only if the application programmer understands
>the behavior implied or noted. But those are application conventions
>and do not belong in the normative parts of the XML specification.
This is rather oversimplified. The addressing mechanisms we are defining
would be unliekly to work well without explicit support in the form of
syntactic and semantic definitions of how they should be coded and what
they should designate.
>If they are there, and they are not procedurally defined (that is,
>the operations for the data structure are not defined by function
>or axiomatically), then their originators deserve the good horse laugh
>the implementors will give them, and return to writing server-side
>scripts for LiveWire.
I finally get it, I think. You don't belive that it's possible to implement
the indirection from a link to the code to make behavior for the link. Or
else you believe that in 10 years we will still have the same set of
crippled user-interfaces that we have today, and that we won't want to
change how our footnote links are interpreted without changing (pardon me)
"every single ****ing document" we've ever created in the meantime.
Our miserable single browser windows, measly displays, and pathetic and
disorienting frames are going to be history practically tomorrow. XML can
do better than to require specific browser behaviours when defining link
It has to do better, if it is not to perpetuate in linking the mess that it
hopes to save us form in document representation.
Linking behavior is a "formatting property".
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 \__________________________