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

Re: 1.4 h: Explainer?

From: David Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:38:05 -0500
Message-Id: <v02130504af23e32a31e5@[205.181.197.92]>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 12:25 PM 2/7/97, Len Bullard wrote:
>I think there will be no argument or choice that satisfies all
>conditions in all cases.  This is why I think it preferable
>to use HyTime names where possible.  In this coin toss,
>the coin should be weighted to the side of the standard.
>That is easy to explain(er)/describe/capture.

Given the relative user-base size, implementation scope, and pulicity, the
weight of "standard" naming would go to the inconsistent and incomplete
HTML terminology, which unfortunately conflates several issues that the
standard (though not necessarily authors) will have to distinguish.

   HyTime has the endorsement of the ISO going for it, but it is hardly a
lingua franca very far outside this group (and even within it).

   I like some HyTime terms (like ilink and clink), but the verbosity of
other parts confuses me, and given the time that I have devoted to HyTime,
I can only assume that it will confuse others (who have not spent that
time), as well.

  -- David

I'm not arguing any specific point here, but contesting the general
principle that HyTime terminology has special utility because it is
standardized.



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, 9 February 1997 17:37:21 UTC

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