[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: 4.c Homegrown locator language?



At 9:52 AM -0600 3/7/97, Len Bullard wrote:
>David Durand wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I agree with David particularly with regards to an XML 1.0 version.  An
>easy to
>use but more powerful than current applications version is needed.  I
>think it
>important to emphasize if not in the spec language, at least in the
>presentations
>that XML Linking is more like TEI and less like HyTime in this:  XML
>Linking
>is an application.  It is not a user-extensible meta-language standard
>in the
>way that XML syntax is.

Listen to his words. It's got to mean something when Len and I are both in
enthusiastic agreement!

  -- 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                    \__________________________



References: