Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics?
At 5:42 PM 2/11/97, len bullard wrote:
>Steven J. DeRose wrote:
>> I find that tempting, but a bit too strong. There are at least a few cases
>> where the destination depends on other factors, such as implicit links,
>> links that depend on user configuration or environment data, etc. Take a
>> look at any IETM, or any expert-system-assisted maintenance manual, or
>> anything that supports stretchtext.
Well, much as I hate to disagree with steve, I think we should either not
accomodate such needs, or hedge them with restrictions if we do accomodate
We should not allow turing-complete languages for determining link destinations.
I won't repeat the arguments, but it is clear that web-analysis software is
a growth industry. We should make it easier, not harder. Computable links
make it harder, and are pretty _unnecessary_ on the web, as far as I've
>Right. Depends on the application. The problem of XML link
>(and every dammed hypertext standard anyone has tried to
>create to date) is that we can't put a hotspot/clink/meatball
>(you choose) in running text, expect it to act as a control,
>look like a bold font, and pretend to be "just another declaration".
Yes. All of those properties should be separately specified, not encoded in
>Action="gosub" is "pernicious" but action="submit" is somehow Ok?
They're both pernicious -- but we have to live with microbes and viruses as
well as macro-fauna...
>Picking victims again aren't we? One can declare a process, or process
>a declaration. SGML doesn't care. XML shouldn't either.
Yes, but SGML provides no _special_ facilities for processing. This was the
point, and I've yet to see any pratical or theoretical reason to abondon
this for linking when we agree that it is a good idea for other
David Durand email@example.com \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________