W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 2000

Fwd: Re: more thoughts about show=embed...

From: Eve L. Maler <elm@east.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:59:34 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org

>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:18:22 -0800 (PST)
>X-Sender: Steven_DeRose@postoffice.brown.edu
>To: Erik Wilde <netdret@dret.net>, "Eve L. Maler" <elm@East.Sun.COM>,
>         dorchard@ca.ibm.com, bent@exemplary.net,
>         David Lowe <dbl@eng.uts.edu.au>
>From: Steve DeRose <Steven_DeRose@brown.edu>
>Subject: Re: more thoughts about show=embed...
>on multiple returns...
>I don't think there's much to delve into; HyTime has a specific construct
>for this, which uses about the only semantics I can think of that makes
>sense: if two ends of a link are multiple ("multlocs"), then they
>correspond pairwise. There are built-in notions of multiples, vs.
>aggregates (where the set returned is intended to be coalesced).
>Since we do allow multiple, it seems we ought to at least say what we mean,
>and the only thing I can think of is to either say they're always
>coalesced, always pairwise, or you get a setting. I'd say we should make it
>pairwise, and think about adding the option in a later rev.
>Eds, since we haven't said anything about this semantics, it seems like we
>should. Thoughts?
>Steven_DeRose@Brown.edu; http://www.stg.brown.edu/~sjd
>Chief Scientist, Scholarly Technology Group, and
>    Adjunct Associate Professor, Brown University

Eve Maler            Sun Microsystems
elm @ east.sun.com    +1 781 442 3190
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2000 14:58:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:21 UTC