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

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

From: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 97 09:33:31 CST
Message-Id: <199702031545.KAA04642@www10.w3.org>
To: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org>
David's, Eve's, and Lee's sketches of possible markup for declaring use
of XHL architectural forms looked interesting to me, but I confess I
didn't understand any of them very well.  Would you be willing to
provide simple prose glosses for those of us in the back of the class,
saying what information a processor is to glean from

   <?XHL link=a,footnote>

   <?XML LINK ELEMENTS "a footnote">

   <!attlist link -XHL-form #FIXED "link">

   <?XML ATTLIST PrimaryIE
        xml             (linkto)        "linkto"
        xmlnames        CDATA           #FIXED "linkends ptr"
        scheme          (intid)         "intid"

    <?-XML- URI element A attribute HREF?>
    <?-XML- URI element FOOTNOTE attribute HREF?>
    <?-XML- SYSTEM element IMAGE attribute SRC action embed?>
    <?-XML-XHL- -XML-XHL-URI- -XML-XHL-ELEMENT A ..... ugh?>

Something along the lines of 'This indicates that the element
BLORT in the document corresponds to the architectural form FARBLE
as specified in the XHL draft, and the AF's attributes FOO, BAR,
FU, and MANCHU appear in the document as PHEW, HAR, WHO, and
ATCHOO; it also signals that the intended action is to EMBED
the object pointed at.'

I realize that you probably omitted the gloss on the grounds that the
meaning was intuitively obvious.  So here's a reality check:  it
wasn't, at least to me, at least not in full.  If I'm the only one
on the list who didn't grasp it all, feel free to send your glosses
only to me, or to ignore this request.

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Monday, 3 February 1997 10:45:57 UTC

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