Re: Relationship Taxonomy Questions

bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak) writes:
>[...] ("Supported for everything" implies a shared
>vocabulary of some kind; I'm assuming that you have something like
>HTML in mind.  Without *some* common understandings you can never
>figure out what to do, because then you don't know what I mean at all.
>The shared vocabulary may be no more than identifying which elements
>are supposed to be titles, but I think that there has to be something.
>I can imagine heuristics so clever that they could tell by an
>examination of the content itself what things are supposed to mean,
>but those heuristics would be a good deal smarter than I am.)

I certainly agree on principle with the idea of a shared link vocabulary,
but I was under the impression that we would specify the link syntax as an
architecture and supply the hooks to allow document authors to use their
own personal (eg., non-English) language for links to that architecture.
I'm just against creating a somewhat arbitrary-length, bounded list of link
types and putting that in the normative part of the XML spec. Maybe an
arcform attribute could actually be the linktype name. Dunno. I don't quite
understand how there could be an architectural meta-stylesheet (or
'behavior-sheet'). Maybe this is something we could develop.


    Murray Altheim, Program Manager
    Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
    email: <mailto:murray@spyglass.com>
    http:  <http://www.cm.spyglass.com/murray/murray.html>
           "Give a monkey the tools and he'll eventually build a typewriter."