- From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 10:54:31 -0500
- To: cbullard@hiwaay.net
- CC: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM, w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
>What would really help this discussion more than >abstractions on linking would be set of IDLs for an XML handler. >Define the XML handler public services. Actually, this would be a *very* interesting approach to the problem. We could model the entire web in IDL. Great for compatibiliy (objects addressable as CORBA objects seems like a real win to me). The problem with this approach is that you *will* model the entire web (ie. you'll have to model documents, protocols, etc. etc.) unless you wish for "undefined" behaviour to creep in. >For object oriented programmers to build what we say we want, we have >to tell them how much the XML spec defines the behavior of the system >that handles it? What services do we want from that .dll? What is >the XML handler interface to the framework? Yes. Once we start defining behaviour, there is no end to it until you've defined the application. I think a *very* important decision is whether we wish to head down that path or not. As Len rightly notes, link resolution is a seperate problem to link specification. I believe that link resolution mechanism definition is not part of the charter for this group (unless I am quite wrong). If we start defining resolution mechnism behaviour/semantics, we'll end up reinventing the Internet. The beauty of a URL is it's opaqueness.
Received on Friday, 27 December 1996 10:56:22 UTC