- From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 11:09:46 +0000
- To: dgd@cs.bu.edu (David G. Durand), w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 13:13 31/12/96 -0500, David G. Durand wrote: > So I suggest: > > 1. We have identified a clear requirement for XML documents to be able >to idnetify other documents that need to be processed along with them >(mostly for ilink resolution). The essential requirement > > 2. The term BOS is not that useful in describing browser behavior, as it >is unfamiliar outside of HyTime, and the HyTime notion can be applied to >the web in at least two distinct ways. I suggest that we use a new term >"working document set" to mean a set of documents that need to be processed >together, and within which ilinks in all the documents are supposed to be >accessible. Applications may mess with the working document set, under >arbitrary user control; but an author can augment the browser's working set >for a particalar document by declaring "companion documents", which will be >added to the working document set when that particular document is >processed. Nice term - could be usefully abbreviated to WORKDOCS. Authors could add COMDOCS, better still, USEFULDOCS (i.e. "useful companion documents") > > 3. The notion of explicit "hub documents" is foreign to the web, and >easy to synthesize from the "companion document" mechanism, so we might as >well leave it be. If you mean "drop it" I concur. ---- Martin Bryan, The SGML Centre, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029 WWW home page: http://www.u-net.com/~sgml/
Received on Wednesday, 1 January 1997 06:11:16 UTC