[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ERB decisions on the LINKTYPE proposal



At 20:48 03.03.97 +0100, Paul Prescod wrote:
><PHILOSOPHY>
>#1. When you tell the application that an element is a link through an
>attribute, is that processing or structure? It seems like structure to me. 

Perhaps I bent the stick a little too far in the interests of getting
the argument across. I do think things are a little more complicated
than "It's either structure and belongs in the DTD, or it's processing
and belongs in the stylesheet."

Are we talking about structure-related processing information or
processing-related structural information? Does it matter? The important
thing is to make sure that we have an association mechanism that is
flexible and extensible.

Maybe your way of looking at it is more appropriate. The architectural
forms do not specify *processing*, but they do relate the structure to
an architecture defined by a *processor*, and in that case, LINK (as
you point out) is necessary for this to work well.

Steve (not yet SGML Philosopher)
--
Steve Pepper, SGML Architect, <pepper@falch.no>
Falch Infotek a.s, Postboks 130 Kalbakken, N-0902 Oslo, Norway
http://www.falch.no/   tel://+47 2290 2733   fax://+47 2290 2599
"The Whirlwind Guide": http://www.falch.no/people/pepper/sgmltool/
"Using LINK profitably": http://www.falch.no/people/pepper/link.htm