Re: 5.1 Extended Link Groups

At 12:33 PM 3/4/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>5.1.a Shall we support a mechanism for a document to contain a list of 
>other documents that someone thinks ought to processed with it, in order
>to find linking elements pointing into the first document, and in general
>create a web of related documents?

Yes.  We may not be able to specify the great BOS in the sky - in Steve
Newcomb's terms, to assert that every resource must know it's a resource -
but the benefits are immense and it's easy.

>5.1.b If so, shall we say anything normative about whether this must be 

Maybe not "must be done", but if done, I think it must be respected.
Why not?  Obviously unenforceable, but if we provide a mechanism for
info-providers to assert their choices in this area, then products to
be called compliant should respect those choices.

>5.1.c Should we use an SGML element, a PI, or some other construct to hold 
>this list of documents? 
>5.1.d If we use an element, what should it be called? 
>5.1.e If we use an SGML element, should we have subelements per referenced 
>doc or just a token-separated list of entity names in a single attribute? 
>In either case what should the subelement (if any) and attributes be 

I like the way it is in the draft spec. -T.