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

Re: Radical cure for BOS confusion (2 ccs' to Jon's address deleted)

From: W. Eliot Kimber <eliot@isogen.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 12:45:02 -0900
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 12:46 PM 1/9/97 -0500, David G. Durand wrote:
>>If I understand the proposal correctly,
>>ilinks can be scattered throughout a document like raisins in a
>>pudding, and any one of them can potentially pull into the BOS any
>>number of other ilinks via recursion.
>No. Only an occurence of a required-for-processing AF instance pulls in
>other documents. That is the real difference between the HyTime BOS, which
>follows all links to some fixed level of recursion, and the XML BOS that I
>am proposing, which pulls in only documents explicitly requested by the

Just a point of detail: in HyTime, the HyTime BOS is determined *entirely*
by entity declarations, resolved recursively, not links.  By "HyTime BOS" I
mean the minimum BOS that a HyTime engine would define by examining entity
declarations starting with those in the hub document and applying the
boslevel, maxbos, and inbos constraints.  An application is then free to
add or delete from the HyTime BOS by whatever means, including the
examination of links.

But the core idea of BOS in HyTime is one of packaging entities, with the
presumption that link traversal to objects outside the BOS is either not
allowed or is not done without prior consent of the author.


W. Eliot Kimber (eliot@isogen.com) 
Senior SGML Consulting Engineer, Highland Consulting
2200 North Lamar Street, Suite 230, Dallas, Texas 75202
+1-214-953-0004 +1-214-953-3152 fax
http://www.isogen.com (work) http://www.drmacro.com (home)
"Rats in the morning, rats in the afternoon...if they don't go away, I'll be
re-educated soon..."                 --Austin Lounge Lizards, "1984 Blues"
Received on Thursday, 9 January 1997 13:47:15 UTC

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