Re: 4.d Compulsory locator language(s)?

At 12:33 PM -0800 3/4/97, Tim Bray wrote:
>4.d The spec will describe some addressing types that we support.  Should
>we declare support for one or more locator languages to be compulsory?

Yes. we are giving people link types, and anchor roles and explainers and
N-ary links. That is all flexibility for content description. We should not
offer the same flexibility for linking infrastructure (locator languages,
URL formats, and the other stuff that people have to write code to resolve,
and where we can't see a way that the extension could automatically work on
a new client).

I think IDref, and TEI locators give us what we want. I think Fragment IDs
are the way they should be put in the attribute values, too. No separate
address types.

  -- 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                    \__________________________