Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question!

At 09:33 AM 2/3/97 CST, Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>David's, Eve's, and Lee's sketches of possible markup for declaring use
>of XHL architectural forms looked interesting to me, but I confess I
>didn't understand any of them very well.  Would you be willing to
>provide simple prose glosses for those of us in the back of the class,
>saying what information a processor is to glean from
>   <?XML ATTLIST PrimaryIE
>        xml             (linkto)        "linkto"
>        xmlnames        CDATA           #FIXED "linkends ptr"
>        scheme          (intid)         "intid"
>   ?>

This indicates that the element PrimaryIE in the document corresponds
to the architectural form LINKTO in the XHL draft (I made up LINKTO;
the current draft calls it ALINK), and the AF's attribute PTR (I made
that up too; the draft calls it HREF) appears in the document as 
LINKENDS.  The AF's attribute SCHEME (HRTYPE in the draft) is set
permanently to INTID (my previously suggested hrtype for SGML IDs
in the current document).  No particular linking behavior or formatting 
is specified.

So you see, I was cheating by making up my own markup names...  Sorry!  
(I do like my names better.)  Does this help?


>Something along the lines of 'This indicates that the element
>BLORT in the document corresponds to the architectural form FARBLE
>as specified in the XHL draft, and the AF's attributes FOO, BAR,
>FU, and MANCHU appear in the document as PHEW, HAR, WHO, and
>ATCHOO; it also signals that the intended action is to EMBED
>the object pointed at.'
>I realize that you probably omitted the gloss on the grounds that the
>meaning was intuitively obvious.  So here's a reality check:  it
>wasn't, at least to me, at least not in full.  If I'm the only one
>on the list who didn't grasp it all, feel free to send your glosses
>only to me, or to ignore this request.
>C. M. Sperberg-McQueen