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

Re: BOS as a term

From: <lee@sq.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 97 10:42:36 EST
Message-Id: <9701121542.AA03580@sqrex.sq.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
dgd@cs.bu.edu (David G. Durand) wrote:

> Terry Allen wrote:
> >On another point, "XML BOS" is no help at all.  Hytime invented "BOS";
> >let's let BOS remain a Hytime term and avoid having to explain how an
> >"XML BOS" differs from a Hytime BOS every time we use the term.
>    Hey, I already tried that tack, but BOS seems to be sticking. While it
> may be confusing to use BOS at all, we must qualify it, if we use it. If
> anyone else has a better term to suggest, I'm game, but neither of my other
> suggestions (companion documents, document working set) met with any
> general acceptance.

I asked recently and was told that BOS was being used in the HyTime
sense (by Peter Flynn, who had me look it up in his acronym server).

Well, when I have finished catching up (I _think_ I just finished reading
about RS/RE) I'll understand which HyTime terms are being used to
imply full HyTime conformance and syntax and incomprehensibility to
most mortals, and which are being used loosely by people who find the
HyTime terms useful.

For now, I'm unable to follow the discussion, so I'll keep quiet.
With all my fingers and toes intact! :-)

Received on Sunday, 12 January 1997 10:42:50 UTC

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