Re: Section 0: Naming

It seems desirable to me that the names of all our pieces should carry
a strong implication that XML is REALLY (the SGML subset) + (the
linking stuff) + (the style stuff), and that anyone who says "I
support XML" but who's only done the SGML subset should be widely
regarded as a schmuck.  So I like Hyper-XML, or XML-Link, but am a tad
worried about the possibility that this might be seen as an add-on
that you don't really have to support (or could even replace with your
own specs).  Maybe these worries would be adequately addressed simply
by cross-references between the final specs (the XML spec saying "You
better do the stuff in the Hyper-XML spec, too", and so on).

The applicability of Hyper-XML to SGML can be adequately addressed by
a statement to that effect in the draft, I should think.  As for HTML,
they're going to have to change it to be able to use Hyper-XML, so
perhaps the appropriate language is "You HTML people should
incorporate all this if you know what's good for you".

John Lavagnino
Women Writers Project, Brown University