As the document has today's date I take it this is a new version;
if not, and if these issues have been dealt with, please ignore.
In the draft 970406 [millenium problem!] at textuality.com,
s.v. 3.3 Extended link, both the Extended and Locator
attlists contain Show, Actuate, and Behavior. I seem to
recall that we discussed this issue before, but let me tediously
bring it up again.
[Forshadowing: the last para of the section speaks of the values
of (all) attributes being used in "processing the locator element",
yet these attributes seem to apply not to processors but to applications.]
It is stated that if the Locator element doesn't specify a value,
the value is inherited from the Extended element. It is not stated
whether the value of a Locator element attribute overrides that
of an Extended element attribute. I gather that is the intent; if
so, please say this explicitly.
However, for these three attributes it's unclear what various
combinations would mean. If an Extended has three Locators,
and the Show attribute on the Locators is Embed for one,
Replace for another, and New for the third, what should an
ordinary browser app do?
I suggest that as the SGML ERB is unwilling to specify anything
about applications, these attributes be stricken and the issues
they are meant to address be dealt with later. Better to leave
them out than underspecify them.
On another point, 5.1 opens with a carefully worded para about
subordination of the XML spec to URL semantics for non-XML
data types. It's unclear what the upshot is, e.g., when an
XML instance (I'm beginning to think that calling XML instances
"documents" is hindering comprehension of architectural issues)
uses a TEI-style URL to point into an HTML document. It would
be useful to provide somewhat more closure to this para.
The second para speaks of describing query syntax and semantics
for URLs that point to XML. Is it intended to be binding on, e.g.,
HTML docs that use queries to point into XML instances? If
so, how, exactly?
I think that an alternate view to that of the first para is that
the SGML ERB is proposing an extension to URL query syntax that
identifies the syntax used for the query. That's fine, I like
it; either way there are implications for or requirements on
server behavior; lets be clearer what they are. Are there to
be XML-compliant servers that handle these semantics?
BTW, an RFE for section 5.3.1 et seq.: when you have time,
please insert examples; this zone of the document is perfect
6, Extended Link Groups, mentions what applications may wish
to do. Aside from the anthropomorphism, this gets into territory
the SGML ERB has declined to enter. Please strike or rephrase
the first para and "In these cases" at the start of the second.
Better yet, provide several concrete examples of how this
mechanism is to work in practice, or delete it. The concept
"group of interlinked documents" being "processed" is seriously
underdefined. Are there requirements on the processor? the
application? What are they?
Terry Allen Electronic Publishing Consultant tallen[at]sonic.net
Davenport and DocBook: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
T.A. at Passage Systems: terry.allen[at]passage.com