Re: 1.4 h: Explainer?
At 12:25 PM 2/7/97, Len Bullard wrote:
>I think there will be no argument or choice that satisfies all
>conditions in all cases. This is why I think it preferable
>to use HyTime names where possible. In this coin toss,
>the coin should be weighted to the side of the standard.
>That is easy to explain(er)/describe/capture.
Given the relative user-base size, implementation scope, and pulicity, the
weight of "standard" naming would go to the inconsistent and incomplete
HTML terminology, which unfortunately conflates several issues that the
standard (though not necessarily authors) will have to distinguish.
HyTime has the endorsement of the ISO going for it, but it is hardly a
lingua franca very far outside this group (and even within it).
I like some HyTime terms (like ilink and clink), but the verbosity of
other parts confuses me, and given the time that I have devoted to HyTime,
I can only assume that it will confuse others (who have not spent that
time), as well.
I'm not arguing any specific point here, but contesting the general
principle that HyTime terminology has special utility because it is
I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand firstname.lastname@example.org \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________