- From: <lee@sq.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 18:24:58 EST
- To: eliot@isogen.com, mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com, w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
Eliot wrote: > There is no HyTime-direct way to say that you want an address to be cobbled > together from a variety of attributes on the same element, [but] > you can always define a "query" that will give you the effect, however > twisted such an approach might be. I for one care not one whit how "twisted" the XML hyperlinking facility appears in HyTime, nor even whether HyTime has to be modified before it can accommodate it. I _do_ care that it be simple and easy to explain. Since there is already a large well-used widely deployed hypertext system in the world, we will have to explain and justify every difference. Many, many. many times, to many people. I see strong reasons to use the existing URL syntax, and to allow for URNs when they settle down. Anything that makes simple links much more complex than <A HREF="http://www.sq.com./toc.html" REL="TOC" TITLE="table of contents" MEDIA-TYPE="text/html" >Table of contents</A> might as well be forgotten quietly now. Yes, I'd like to see indirection supported -- luckily, you can do this with entities: <A HREF="&mylink;"> and store the entity definitions in a separate file. Yes, I'd like to see something like Panorama's "web files" -- a user-managed (or automatically downloaded) way of transporting a set of links and/or annotations -- in a separate ilinkish file. No, I don't want to write anything more complex. As has already been pointed out, a majority of people who use the web, and a majority of people who create HTML document, do not clearly understand the syntax of URLs, but use copy and paste. If you make them split them up just for the sake of a messier link (or cleaner, if you happen to like it), they will make more mistakes, and probably go back to HTML. Existing practice shows the need for simplicity. Lee
Received on Saturday, 18 January 1997 18:25:29 UTC