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

Re: Terminology in XML-Link Draft



I agree that we need to "edit" all the names cohesively, and I especially
like your suggestions about using "SIMPLE" instead of "LINK" and having all
the XML-LINK values right up front.  (Have we actually voted on HREF as the
name for the locator attribute?  I don't think so.)

I suspect that the latest version of the spec needs some basic cleanup that
will take care of some of your comments.  (There shouldn't be a Behavior
attribute anymore, and why did we spend hours on Label just to have a Title
attribute? :-)

        Eve

At 10:21 AM 3/17/97 -0500, Alan Karben wrote:
>Even if we adopt an attribute-remapping scheme, the attributes described 
>in XML-Link would be studied by many and adopted in DTDs used by 
>non-hypertext experts. I suggest they be as user-friendly as possible. 
>
>I know these issues have already been haggled-over, but there are many 
>terms and organizational constructs in the XML-Link draft that IMHO could 
>use a makeover. (Hopefully the ongoing alteration & simplification of 
>the draft will deem some of these terms unnecessary.)