- From: Murray Altheim <murray@spyglass.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:44:54 -0400
- To: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak)
- Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak) writes: >[Sean Mc Grath:] > >| >At 05:53 PM 2/12/97 -0400, Murray Altheim wrote: >| >>Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> writes in separate messages: >| >>>2.1.a Should we allow link recognition via a reserved attribute? >| >>[...] >| >>>2.2.a Should we allow link recognition via a reserved GI? >| >> >| >>Is there any reason not to allow both as equivalents >| > >| >Of course not; we can approve of neither, either, or both. I favor >| >both myself. >| >| Count me in for both. > >I'm not following the reasoning for having both forms. If the >reserved attribute method works, why do we need the reserved GI? If >the reserved GI method has advantages, why use the reserved attribute? This would allow a designer to use either the reserved GI as the link element name, or modify a legacy name by adding an AF attribute. Not counting myself among the Hytime cognoscenti I'm going to stretch a little here, but this is my understanding: There might be an XML application that uses the XML GI: <XML-LINKTO HREF="http://www.foo.com/" HRTYPE="alink"> which could be equivalent to an XML-ized HTML: <A HREF="http://www.foo.com/" XML="LINKTO" XML-HRTYPE="alink"> although I'm not sure from various sources if the attribute name should be 'XML', 'XMLNAME', etc. [Since I've probably got this skewed, I'm ready for my reeducation. *slap*] Murray ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Murray Altheim, Program Manager Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts email: <mailto:murray@spyglass.com> http: <http://www.cm.spyglass.com/murray/murray.html> "Give a monkey the tools and he'll eventually build a typewriter."
Received on Thursday, 13 February 1997 13:39:49 UTC