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

Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics?



At 10:43 AM 2/10/97, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>But neither traversal or action is at the right level of generality.
>[See next message about traversal]
>Both you and Martin are too focussed, in my view, on browsers and
>mouse clicks.  As a possibly useful example, consider the case of
>external, non-participating 2-ended links to annotate the translation
>relationship between the sentences of french and english versions of a
>bilingual document.  A terminology extraction tool will exploit the
>semantics of such a link (i.e. behave in a certain way) completely
>differently to a translation tutorial program.

Thank you... Those of us in the business of being broken records appreciate
another voice joining us in...

>
>I realise this is dragging us back towards the whole link
>{semantics/type/behaviour} debate, which I have done my best to
>follow, but it leaves me feeling that although we need to clearly
>distinguish between
>
>1) intrinsic XML semantics for links, i.e. termini, participation, etc.;
>2) XML Application (in the strict SGML sense of 'application')
>   semantics, e.g. the bilingual alignment example above;
>3) Implemented application behaviour
>
>we are only in the business of specifying (1).

And we need to specify clearly what is involved in binding 1 -> 2 and 3.

That is the effort currently called stylesheet that needs a different name,
desperately. Just for kicks how about using

"Display and processing spec"

to replace the linking +formatting language I keep referring to as a style
sheet?

>
>ht

_________________________________________
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                    \__________________________



Follow-Ups: