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

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

From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 10:41:02 -0600
Message-ID: <32F7669E.7817@hiwaay.net>
To: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Jon Bosak wrote:
> [Len Bullard:]
> | We keep getting caught on the problems of making information portable
> | while keeping systems interoperable, so maybe we just have to say, XML
> | does not do interoperability except insofar as two communicators agree
> | to use the same processor specification.
> I don't think this works.  A key reason that HTML is successful is
> because it provides a basic set of common understandings.  Without a
> basic set of common understandings, communication is impossible.

Hmmm... yes, Jon.  Contracts are about enforceable agreements.  No
argument there.

The basic understandings are HTML and the URL approach.  We can't 
assume the former.  What understandings will we assume?  It is 
because they extend HTML without agreements (violate the contract) and
use the market 
to work out the differences that they have interoperation problems 
now.  So far, we can only assume portability based on syntax.

HTML includes ACTION="post" | "get".  Can we use XML hyperlinking 
to build controls with predictable behaviors unless we agree on the 
behaviors?  We can agree on indirection although they may still 
elect not to do that with all of the implied compromises to 
portability.  How do we agree on what we indirect to?  As soon as 
controls are interlaced with data, we have this conflict of interest.

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 1997 11:51:59 UTC

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