Re: 5.2 Linking element corrals?
At 12:53 PM -0800 3/5/97, Tim Bray wrote:
>At 12:33 PM 3/4/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>>The premise is that since extended links are independent of their
>>resources, they can be difficult to find. One solution is to
>>corral them into one spot, either within a document or in a special
>>5.2.b If so, should we require its use?
If use is not required, then implementors have to deal with external links
in arbitrary contexts anyway, hence the corral gives no advantage.
>>5.2.c If we allow but not require its use, should we require that if the
>>corral is used, there be no extended linking elements outside it?
>Yes. Otherwise worthless
NO. -- since not using a corral allows the links anyway, using the corral
shouldn't introduce funky dependencies!
Hence, as I said before: Worthless!
>Redundant... if you have an xlink corrall, then you can have a document
>containing just an xlink corrall - so you got this in effect.
And if you can have xlinks outside of corrals ever, then corrals are
>>5.2.f If we specify LINKS and/or LINKSETS, should we discuss the temporal
>>effectivity and user-visibility of the links therein, in terms of the
>>period the document is "open"?
>No. I think it's hard to get this right; if we're clean on the semantics
>of what it *means*, that should be enough. -T.
This is right. We need to specify an effective set "required" by a document
to respect author intent -- Any other rules are a matter of user-and
application related choice. If we get the semantics clear, the rest will
David Durand firstname.lastname@example.org \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________