Re: 4.c Homegrown locator language?

At 12:33 PM -0800 3/4/97, Tim Bray wrote:
>4.c The spec will describe some addressing types that we support.  Should
>we be open-ended and include a way to support other user-defined
>locator languages?

No. The fact that we are defining generalized markup means that users can
define their own locator languages if they want to -- and have the same
level of interoperability with the rest of the world (none, without prior
arrangement). If they want a way to generalize things, they can use HyTime.

For XML linking, no effective purpose is server by knowing that something
is a locator, if there's no guarantee that it can be resolved.

We should keep XML linking as a specific architecture, not a toolkit. XML
is a toolkit, and allows for flexibile private arrangements, so lets keep
links simple and only include features that we are wiling to require of xml
linking implementors.

  -- David

David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________

Follow-Ups: References: