Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data?
David Durand wrote:
> At 12:59 PM -0500 2/21/97, Steven J. DeRose wrote:
> >At 11:53 PM 02/20/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
> >>The ERB schedule calls for voting on Feb. 26 on these items.
> >>3.1.a Should we have a principle that all linkage information is encoded in
> >>GIs and/or attribute values, never in character data?
> >No. Unenforceable, and sometimes it's useful anyway, such as for supporting
> >links from every word to dictionaries/glossaries/etc, for links from 'the
> >current selection', etc.
> Sorry. I think we should say that all _XML-linking_ information is encoded
> in GIs or attribute values. With generic markup people can _implement_ any
> behavior that they can define -- but we are defining behaviors that people
> can count on -- and links in CDATA are not such behaviors unless we define
> how they work.
This is a restriction we can live with in XML 1.0. Maybe longer.
> I think the fact that people can implement other linking mechanisms goes
> without saying, but we should be explicit about exactly what is permitted
> by XML linking.
"Permitted" might be the sticking word. All XML Linking can say is what
a conforming application must guarantee. What is done beyond that
by use of other attributes or element types is not something XML
enables. Otherwise, we are stuck trying to provide the mechanisms
for extensions to XML Linking when in effect, that should be
an issue for XML 2.0 once XML 1.0 has been shaken like a rag
doll in the dog's mouth with a kid pulling on it. We are the dollmaker,
the dog or the kid.