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

Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute?

From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:17:27 -0600
Message-ID: <330E10E7.7AE0@hiwaay.net>
To: David Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
David Durand wrote:

> I meant that if we are taking a significantly shrunken subset of HyTime
> Architectural Forms [for instance, I think we can and should avoid any
> restrictions on content models], then it may be simpler to explain what we
> are doing directly, rather than pointing at HyTime, and explaining the
> differences.

Then what am I to make of Eliot's assertion that XML Linking is 
conforming HyTime.  I admit that I don't have the time to work
out the details of that.  I also don't like restrictions on 
content models.  It is a lot less ugly as deRose has shown 
to use them for linking information.  
 
>    If you are defining a scripting language containing only the commands
> "if-then-else", expressions, variable assignment and "while" loops,
> pointing to C++ and saying what to ignore is not a productive explanatory
> strategy. You might mention that C++ compaitibility is a goal, but that
> would be additional information for the intersted, not part of the core
> explanation.
> 
>    "Drag in" was intended to say that making normative reference to
> irrelevant information is bad.

That is the sticking point.  Is it irrelevant?

> I do want to make XML, and XML linking stand on
> their own, without normative references to ISO standards.

I'm not sure if that goal has any utility.  Whereas, 
gratuitous references are not useful, normative references 
establish a chain of authoritative information.  That 
does have utility.  WG8 is very likely to build the 
SGML Lite over XML and that is a win-win for all of us.

> No personal animosity intended, nor religious argument either. I'm
> religious about separating declaration and processing (though if we don't
> define sufficiently powerful processing, I agree with you, we are SOL). I'm
> certainly not religious about HyTime either way. In fact, I'm aggressively
> agnostic. I think you may mistrust me because I'm so ready to question
> HyTime's specific solutions, but I don't regret having spent the time on it
> that I have, nor do I think it should be supressed.

Oh, I don't distrust the questions at all.  I wish we had all been 
doing this some years ago online and in this fevered way.  But 
that is past.  What I want to see now is a clear authoritative 
chain of standards expressed as running code and embraced as 
COTS applications.  Then we can all go watch deRose ice skate.

len
Received on Friday, 21 February 1997 16:28:40 UTC

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