Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question!
At 11:08 AM 1/31/97, Tim Bray wrote:
>Should links be expressed as SGML elements?
This could mean one of 2 very different things:
1. Should the syntax of links somehow involve the use of elements as
opposed to entities, PIs or other SGML (or ad-hoc) features?
Answer(for me): YES.
2. Should the syntax of links involve fixed element name definitions?
Answer(for me): Definitely not!
As this has been a significant part of the last month's discussion, I will
wait to see how the discussion goes, before frobbing the issue again.
I vote that we add a new XML declaration (that looks like a PI) to
declare AF roles for elements, including a setting that simply maps all AFs
to their element names. Or that we use architectural forms, the Internal
subset, and separate attribute declaration to solve the problem in an
Should be enough, or:
<!doctype whatever SYSTEM "http://foo.com/whatever.dtd"
<!attlist link -XHL-form #FIXED "link">
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 \__________________________