Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute?

bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak) writes:
>[Sean Mc Grath:]
>| >At 05:53 PM 2/12/97 -0400, Murray Altheim wrote:
>| >>Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> writes in separate messages:
>| >>>2.1.a Should we allow link recognition via a reserved attribute?
>| >>[...]
>| >>>2.2.a Should we allow link recognition via a reserved GI?
>| >>
>| >>Is there any reason not to allow both as equivalents
>| >
>| >Of course not; we can approve of neither, either, or both.  I favor
>| >both myself.
>| Count me in for both.
>I'm not following the reasoning for having both forms.  If the
>reserved attribute method works, why do we need the reserved GI?  If
>the reserved GI method has advantages, why use the reserved attribute?

This would allow a designer to use either the reserved GI as the link
element name, or modify a legacy name by adding an AF attribute. Not
counting myself among the Hytime cognoscenti I'm going to stretch a little
here, but this is my understanding:

There might be an XML application that uses the XML GI:

    <XML-LINKTO HREF="http://www.foo.com/" HRTYPE="alink">

which could be equivalent to an XML-ized HTML:

    <A HREF="http://www.foo.com/" XML="LINKTO" XML-HRTYPE="alink">

although I'm not sure from various sources if the attribute name should be
'XML', 'XMLNAME', etc.

[Since I've probably got this skewed, I'm ready for my reeducation. *slap*]


    Murray Altheim, Program Manager
    Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
    email: <mailto:murray@spyglass.com>
    http:  <http://www.cm.spyglass.com/murray/murray.html>
           "Give a monkey the tools and he'll eventually build a typewriter."