- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 13:52:49 +0700
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 10:18 03/03/97 GMT, Henry S. Thompson wrote: >I think in fact groves provide the only >sensible way to specify what we mean in an application-neutral way. >So let's try that, using the name SNODE for the node in the grove of >class Element which instantiates the linking element we're concerned with: > >INCLUDE: On actuation, replace the content of SNODE with the grove >fragment (one or more nodes) which instantiates the target resource. > >REPLACE: On actuation, replace SNODE (or (grove-root SNODE), see >above) with the node (must be exactly one) which instantiates the >target resource. > >NEW: On actuation, construct a new grove which instantiates the >target resource. I don't like the idea of modelling link traversal as grove mutation. Suppose I have an XML editor and an XML document with a SHOW=INCLUDE link. We can imagine two distinct operations: a) traverse the link, and b) change the document, replacing the link element by the linked-to resource. I would suggest it is (b) rather than (a) that is appropriately modelled by mutating the grove. James
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 02:02:32 UTC