Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost)

At 11:50 AM 31/01/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>[Oops - cut & paste error, screwed this up first time around.]
>
>1.c Should we define a link processor and specify any actions
> required of it?
>1.d Should we specify a way for a document to provide a summary of
> the linkage machinery it uses?

1.c
I am sympathetic to Durand's position on this one; I'd like to be as 
pure as possible about specifying simply a way to point at things.  On the
other hand, Len's point that the market will demand some behavior 
specification has weight.  For the moment, I will argue for *no* 
processor specification; simply markup syntax, and the minimum of that.

1.d
On the other hand, having written 1.d, it was obvious to me that this is
a hole in the spec.  It is of obvious utility for there a way for a document
to signal what it's got.  I think that (a) this should be in a PI and
(b) it should be required to come before the first element.  Having
said that, we can defer the argument over its syntax and contents until
we've hammered out what things XHL will do that might require signalling.
 - Tim

Received on Monday, 3 February 1997 18:20:39 UTC