Re: ERB decisions on the LINKTYPE proposal
Steve Pepper writes:
| 3) "Nobody understands it"
| This is the key argument, I suppose. If as Tim says "only 17 people in
| the world understand LINK", I see that we have an uphill battle on our
| hands. The first question is, is this WG prepared to _try_ to understand
| it before rejecting it? The next question is, is it the _concepts_ that
| are problematic or the _syntax_? (Another interesting question is whether
| those that oppose my proposal number themselves among the 17...)
| I don't want to waste people's time if only Sam Hunting, one (unnamed) ERB
| member and I think this is worth pursuing. If there ARE others, I would
| like to ask them to show their hands; otherwise I will shut up and go back
| into hibernation!
I think it is hard to understand as described; however, I found that
I could construct a simple example that apparently associates ICADD
semantics with Docbook GIs (Steve or someone else mentioned using
LINK for ICADD in just this way). Perhaps describing just the use
of it required for XML would clarify matters.
So no, I don't fully understand LINK and don't expect ever to, but
I do see that it's useful and have actually been able to use it at
least to the extent of constructing a demo. It's worth pursuing.
Terry Allen Electronic Publishing Consultant tallen[at]sonic.net
specializing in Web publishing, SGML, and the DocBook DTD
A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html