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

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

From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:35:50 -0600
Message-ID: <3311A746.52A@hiwaay.net>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> >The ERB schedule calls for voting on Feb. 26 on these items.
> >
> >3.3.a Should we have a type of link that tries to be a nice clean superset of
> >HTML's Anchor?
> Yes.   The A structure used in HTML is also used in other 
SGML applications.  It is the simplest form of hyperlink in common

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

Thing. ;-)  Sorry, the name game isn't worth a lot of thought 
at this point.
> >3.3.c If 3.2.b goes the way of child elements for locators, should the "A"
> >link have a single child element for consistency with that, or no such
> >element for consistency with HTML?

No brainer.  If you already have multiple child elements in other 
significant applications, restricting them in XML Link applications 
just narrows the applicability of XML Link.
> >3.3.d Should we regard such an "A" link as involving one or two resources?

The use of the term resource should be consistent with Dan Connoly's
By that definition, the number of resources should be consistent with
URL RFC.  If you have a link that has multiple URLs, it has potentially, 
multiple resources it can locate.  In VRML, as stated in earlier 
discussions, an anchor can contain multiple URLs.  The processing of 
these (resolve which one) is application dependent.  Again, it is 
used for precedence operations.

> >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?

A link element is not itself a resource unless it is the target of 
another URL.    If an <a name= is in an HTML instance but no
URL uses it as a target=, is it a resource?  This seems to be 
a question for Dan Connoly to answer for HTML.  Saying yes seems 
to fail the "duh!" test.  An implied resource isn't logical.  
A resource is declared or it isn't a resource.

> >3.3.f Should we provide a content model for "A" links?

Since all XML Link information, the spec itself, is an application 
of XML, you can do as you please.  Expect this application to 
diverge over time as HTML and other applications diverge.
> >3.3.g Should we allow "A" links to contain anything other than PCDATA?

XML A links can contain anything the designers of the XML Link
wish to have there if the designers wish to create an XML Element Type 
named A.  Other XML application designers may create XML Element Types 
named A for their applications.

len bullard
lockheed martin
Received on Monday, 24 February 1997 09:46:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:08 UTC