Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics?

David Durand writes:

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

You're welcome -- it's not lack of interest, just lack of time.

>  >. . . 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.

Agreed.  Particularly what properties of links are available to
rendering and processing (small 'a') applications.  Jon mentioned
history a few days ago -- the thin end of a long wedge.

>  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?

How about "rendering and processing spec", although my guess is that
processing beyond rendering is too open-ended to be much more than a
name for a problem.