- From: Dave Peterson <davep@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:51:44 -0500
- To: Bill Smith <Bill.Smith@Eng.Sun.COM>, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 2:00 PM 2/10/97, Bill Smith wrote: >Terry Allen wrote: >> Considering documents this way might clarify discussion (and then >> again, maybe not), and it would certainly clarify explanation: >> "An XML document can be a complex structure, including a style >> sheet or even choice of style sheets, and some metainformation >> about who and how it was produced, just like a Word document >> carries its formatting and some meta along with its text, although >> you don't see everything when you look at it in Word." > >If we are going to go down this path, let's not call this "ball of stuff" >a document. An object (WebObject) might be a better moniker since we should >include behavior as well as appearance in the ball. > >My personal preference would be to include references to behavior (code) and >appearance (style sheets). Without that separation reuse is difficult and >object management is seriously impaired. Just as some would like to see SGML Link declaration information be separate from "the document". And others insist vociferously that it *must* be part of "the document". And others would like "the document" to be just the SGML document element/instance. What should and should not be part of "the document" is a religious war. :-( Dave Peterson SGMLWorks! davep@acm.org
Received on Monday, 10 February 1997 22:52:59 UTC