- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 09:42:34 GMT
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Oh yes, a further point that arises in response to David's response: I wrote: > >although we need to clearly > >distinguish between > > > >1) intrinsic XML semantics for links, i.e. termini, participation, etc.; > >2) XML Application (in the strict SGML sense of 'application') > > semantics, e.g. the bilingual alignment example above; > >3) Implemented application behaviour > > > >we are only in the business of specifying (1). > David replied: > And we need to specify clearly what is involved in binding 1 -> 2 and 3. But note that historically by far and away the most common language for defining large-A Applications is NATURAL language---English, German, Japanese, whatever. I expect somewhere someone has used, for instance, Z to formally specify an SGML Application, but that's the exception rather than the rule. So (2) is really Not Our Problem. As for what aspects of (3) ARE our problem, see my reply to Jon on the 'There Are No Metadocuments' thread. ht
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 1997 04:42:38 UTC