- From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 18:29:44 -0600
- To: "Digitome Ltd." <digitome@iol.ie>
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
Digitome Ltd. wrote: > Okay, I see what you are saying. However, wouldn't differing element type names > from those in the XML-Link architecture be the norm rather > than the exception when existing tomes of SGML are being XML'ified for WEB > delivery? Not necessarily. This is one area where there are big benefits to translating this part of the legacy data. Having the URL at the base of all of the hyperlink schemes means we do this anyway where needed. There really isn't that much complex linked information in SGML tomes. Simple links have been the norm for some time. Easy score for XML/SGML. We all benefit. IMO, XML would do well to define both architecture and standard instances. Adopt TEI if that is what you want but element types are what the SGML-speaking world understand. Adopt a set by affirmation: conventions for XML linking will catch on like a grassfire. SGML folks always try to steer clear of generic coding, but it is the way SGML works best. > Is requiring an XML Browser to retrieve+process the DTD in order to map > element type name "FigRef" to "alink" a bit onerous? Not the first time. len
Received on Sunday, 5 January 1997 19:29:50 UTC