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

Re: Relationship Taxonomy Questions



Agree completely on the below  - Terry

From w3c-sgml-wg-request@www10.w3.org Thu Jan 23 19:38 PST 1997
Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:30:36 -0500
Resent-Message-Id: <199701240330.WAA13642@www19.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:34:23 -0800
From: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak)
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
CC: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM
Subject: Re: Relationship Taxonomy Questions
X-List-URL: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/
X-See-Also: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/SGML/Activity
Resent-From: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/2558
X-Loop: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: w3c-sgml-wg-request@www10.w3.org

[Terry Allen:]

| And in response to Jon's clear statement, I certainly don't want to 
| forbid him from taking this approach, and there is nothing in XML 1.0
| to prevent him from using it, but I don't want to be *required* to use it.
| 
| Put another way, I need to be able to bind link behavior to my document,
| and I want to be able to describe relationships  that do not map
| to behaviors.

I think that we're in complete agreement on this part.

When I send you XML data ("you" being a human, a browser application,
or a nonbrowser application), I want to be able to:

1. Specify the behavior without telling you what I mean, or

2. Say what I mean and let you figure out what to do with it, or

3. Specify the behavior and tell you what I mean, but require that you
follow the specified behavior regardless of what you think about it,
or

4. Specify the behavior and tell you what I mean and let you make up
your own mind about whether to follow the specified behavior.

As the content provider, I want all of these options.

Note that what I have just said applies to both the linking and the
non-linking parts of the document and for the same reasons.

Jon



Follow-Ups: