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
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.