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

Re: Link Indirection

From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 18:29:44 -0600
Message-ID: <32D04778.309C@hiwaay.net>
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.

Received on Sunday, 5 January 1997 19:29:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:06 UTC