- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:13:16 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 11:09 AM 1/31/97, Tim Bray wrote: >1.c: Should we exclude relationships such as containment and >succession from this spec? How is this different from 1.b? Otherwise, what I said. >1.d Should we specify a way for a document to provide a summary of >the linkage machinery it uses? Yes, as users need to be able to choose their options. I think that we should _not_ have explicit leeway for implementors to vary implementations within XML Linking. They can extend, but such extensions should be _clearly outside_ the scope of the standard... There's nothing to stop people from implementing new features, just as anyone can put new tags into HTML, but they should not be able to claim that their new feature is "part" of XML linking, unless it is universally mandated. This is essentially the hypertext extension of the "no options" policy goal. In particular we have to bite the buillet and decide what address formats are legal and not, what link facilities are legal or not. Extensions _will_ duke it out in the marketplace, but we need a well-defined, interoperable base of functionality. -- 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 15:13:00 UTC