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

Re: 3.3 XML Analogue of HTML "<A"?

From: <lee@sq.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 97 00:16:05 EST
Message-Id: <9702220516.AA09779@sqrex.sq.com>
To: tbray@textuality.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> 3.3.a Should we have a type of link that tries to be a nice clean superset of 
> HTML's Anchor?
Not particularly.  RFC1866 (and HTML 3.2) define a lot of things for
HTML anchors.  Including transclusion and pop-up footnotes, by the way
(via REL and REV).

We should allow a URL in an attribute to do something similar to HTML'
A and IMG elements.

> 3.3.b If so, what should we call it? 

> 3.3.d Should we regard such an "A" link as involving one or two resources? 
That depends.
    <A NAME="boy">
involves one resource (the containing document)
So does:
    <A HREF="#boy">
which searches for a CDATA attribute NAME with value "boy".

    <A HREF="xxx" REL="include">you shouldn't see this</A>
might implement transclusion...

> 3.3.e If it involves two resources, is it a problem that there is no obvious 
> place to put locator metadata for the "implied" resource? 

Back to Liam's Taxonomy of Links again.... the <A> is participating;
if you need to identify the implicit link end document, you could
have a BASE URL (which we will need anyway if we are going to rely on
CATALOG) and/oror a base PUBLIC ID, if the meaning of a PUBLIC ID is
pinned down appropriately.

> 3.3.f SHould we provide a content model for "A" links? 
No.  It's up to the DTD concerned.

> 3.3.g Should we allow "A" links to contain anything other than PCDATA? 
Yes.  You can put an H1 in an anchor in HTML today if you like (although
not all HTML DTDs allow this), and you can certainly include images,
emphasis etc.  It wouldn't be a superset if you made this restriction.

Received on Saturday, 22 February 1997 00:16:23 UTC

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