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

Re: 1.b: Excluded relationships



At 11:08 AM 1/31/97, Tim Bray wrote:
>Should we exclude relationships such as containment and
>succession from this spec?

We need not (and I would not) specify how to use links to represent these,
but should not banish these notions from the format of addresses. The point
is that in XML, these are better represented by XML features, than links.

On the other hand, I'm not averse to showing (as an example, not normative
text)  how XML can help you to better manage HTML-style links.

I am also assuming that transclusion rendering semantics are _not_ an
instance of containment, as can be seen from the fact that meta-properties
like authorship do not propogate over transcusion boundaries.

  -- David

I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
_________________________________________
David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________