- From: David Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:32:28 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 6:38 PM 2/9/97, lee@sq.com wrote: >David Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu> wrote: >> Liam Quin <lee@sq.com> wrote: >>> I have just posted to suggest splitting the various concepts out >>> and having 3 names -- internal/external, implicit end, and participating. >> >> not _exactly right_ (but close): >> >> You don't need the distinction between participating and implicit as far as >> I can tell. The only cases where implicit links have been proposed are >> those where the link is participating. > >So I hereby propose external annotations, which are participating and >external, and implicitly all point to the same XML file. Nice. Do we need these enough to need to explain 3 distinctions instead of two? You can keep the destination file explicit, without duplication by using entities Personally I think implicit links to anything but the markup that declares a link are completely evil, as everyone has to understand the "implication" for them to be useful. Of course, if you're just funnin' me for having insufficient link-type imagination, there's no reason to take this note seriously... -- 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 \__________________________
Received on Sunday, 9 February 1997 20:31:38 UTC