W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > February 1997

Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question!

From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:12:50 -0500
Message-Id: <v02130504af1a8592df47@[205.181.197.81]>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 11:08 AM 1/31/97, Tim Bray wrote:
>Should links be expressed as SGML elements?

This could mean one of 2 very different things:

1. Should the syntax of links somehow involve the use of elements as
opposed to entities, PIs or other SGML (or ad-hoc) features?

Answer(for me): YES.

2. Should the syntax of links involve fixed element name definitions?

Answer(for me): Definitely not!

As this has been a significant part of the last month's discussion, I will
wait to see how the discussion goes, before frobbing the issue again.

   I vote that we add a new XML declaration (that looks like a PI) to
declare AF roles for elements, including a setting that simply maps all AFs
to their element names. Or that we use architectural forms, the Internal
subset, and separate attribute declaration to solve the problem in an
SGML-like way.

So:
<?HXL on?>
Should be enough, or:
<?XHL link=a,footnote>

or:

<!doctype whatever SYSTEM "http://foo.com/whatever.dtd"
[
<!attlist link -XHL-form #FIXED "link">
]>

  -- David

I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
_________________________________________
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                    \__________________________
Received on Sunday, 2 February 1997 15:12:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:07 UTC