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

Re: Multi-headed indirect links

From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:03:28 -0600
Message-ID: <32E4DAC0.6238@hiwaay.net>
To: "W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@isogen.com>
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
> At 07:26 AM 1/21/97 -0600, len bullard wrote:
> >Martin Bryan wrote:
> >>
> >> Given that nobody other than myself seems to be interested in indirect
> >> links, and that for direct links the only form that is getting any support
> >> is that of an opaque string, I ask myself whether the XML community has any
> >> interest in having multiheaded links?
> >
> >I thought everyone was interested in multiheaded links (if I understand
> >that correctly).  What I notice is that no design has emerged from
> >the discussion.  I see the same standoff that has existed between
> >HyTime and TEI proponents for a number of years now.
> This is simply not in any way true.  The ERB is well under way in adapting
> my stickman proposal into a formal first draft of the XML Link discussion.

You could have fooled me.  All we see on the list is the squabble, 
not the work underway, which I suppose we all sanction once 
presented.  Not a good way to run a list, Eliot.  Not at all.

> This proposal (the only complete one provided by anyone in this discussion)

That has been noted before by me.

> includes the use of both URLs and TEI extended pointers.  I trust Tim and
> Steve to do an excellent job of creating a short, readable, and complete
> design that satisfies the requirements expressed in these discussions,
> including the needs for both simplicity and convenience and sophistication
> and flexibility.  At least within the ERB, the general design approach
> appears to be remarkably uncontroversial.

It's a pity that doesn't become more apparent to the list members who 
are not members of the ERB.  A more open process is wanted and needed.

> As I have tried to make clear on any number of occasions, *there is no
> inherent conflict between HyTime and the TEI specification*. 

I did not say there was.  I have said this does not appear to be 
the case.  

> But if you want to do things that the XML link spec doesn't
> account for (like use additional HyTime facilities or SDQL queries or
> whatever) you're certainly free to.

You are putting words in my mouth.  It is already crowded in there.
> With the HyTime TC, it will, in all likelihood, be possible to define the
> *current* TEI design, in its entirety, as a conforming HyTime application
> without the need to modify anything about the design itself.

Great.  Put up a draft of a design we can all read and contribute to.
Otherwise, shut down this list, open a company, sell a product 
and compete with it.

Len Bullard
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 1997 10:14:31 UTC

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