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

Re: Can we be more concrete?

From: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 97 19:13:44 CST
Message-Id: <199701080120.UAA20118@www10.w3.org>
To: "W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@isogen.com>, W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org>
On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 18:24:04 -0900 Eliot Kimber said:
>At 03:32 PM 12/30/96 -0800, Terry Allen wrote:
>> ...
>>So, what indicates the semantics of the link to the query?  It isn't
>>the HTTP method.   Is it the semantics of <crossref>?
>
>In the HyTime model, it's the semantics of addresses in general: that
>any reference to a location address is a reference to whatever the
>location address addresses (recursed until you either get only
>non-location addresses, reach the "reflevel" limit, or have a
>circular reference).  This behavior of addresses is independent of
>linking (in other words, the same address resolution behavior would
>result from an ID reference that was not a "link" as we're defining
>it here).

This sounds suspiciously as if it would be impossible to point at
a link (or perhaps I mean to point at *an address*) in order to talk
about it, without slipping past it and landing at what it's pointing
at.  How on earth will I ever be able to write the definitive
cultural critique of hypertext with extensive discussions of the
linking practices of Kimber, Durand, and Allen, if every time I point
at Eliot's links I get an Altavista query for basset hounds?

Surely there's a HyTime way around this problem?

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 1997 20:23:24 UTC

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