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

Re: There Are No Metadocuments

From: Dave Peterson <davep@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:51:44 -0500
Message-Id: <v01540b0caf2575dfee28@[199.222.74.239]>
To: Bill Smith <Bill.Smith@Eng.Sun.COM>, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 2:00 PM 2/10/97, Bill Smith wrote:
>Terry Allen wrote:

>> Considering documents this way might clarify discussion (and then
>> again, maybe not), and it would certainly clarify explanation:
>> "An XML document can be a complex structure, including a style
>> sheet or even choice of style sheets, and some metainformation
>> about who and how it was produced, just like a Word document
>> carries its formatting and some meta along with its text, although
>> you don't see everything when you look at it in Word."
>
>If we are going to go down this path, let's not call this "ball of stuff"
>a document. An object (WebObject) might be a better moniker since we should
>include behavior as well as appearance in the ball.
>
>My personal preference would be to include references to behavior (code) and
>appearance (style sheets). Without that separation reuse is difficult and
>object management is seriously impaired.

Just as some would like to see SGML Link declaration information be separate
from "the document".  And others insist vociferously that it *must* be
part of "the document".  And others would like "the document" to be just
the SGML document element/instance.  What should and should not be part of
"the document" is a religious war.  :-(

Dave Peterson
SGMLWorks!

davep@acm.org
Received on Monday, 10 February 1997 22:52:59 UTC

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