Re: 4.1 Address types
>4.1.a Should we have a single attribute
>4.1.b If so, what should the attribute be called?
>4.1.c If not, should we use a different attribute for each type
>4.1.d If using different attributes for locator languages
>4.1.e Should we discard this scheme and adopt something
>4.1.f Should we abandon the idea of different address types and assert that
>everything is a URL?
4.1.f for me; URLs demonstrably do the job, and already encapsulate
a whole bunch of different schemes in a manner that if, inelegant, works.
I'd figure out a way to squeeze anything else we need into URLs - we
can do this with TEI XPTR's in one or two ways, and I suspect this would
be a win for TEI too. That really leaves IDREF(S). So...
<asbestos-undies>do SGML IDREFs really need to be subsumed into XML Link?
They're already part of base XML. If they do, must we retain the current
syntax, or can we URL-i-fy them, by putting '#' in front of IDREFs
and/or inventing a couple of new schemes? Someone said that per
web rules, we have to formalize what the part after a '#' means in
XML anyhow. Ooh, I'm gonna get scorched.</asbestos-undies> -T.