Re: Multi-headed indirect links

Murray Altheim wrote:

> I'd almost responded to Len's message when yours came in, and I was about
> to remark that after reading through the materials I've either been able to
> gather or have been sent to me by you and others, I found that much of the
> documentation on HyTime to be frankly beyond me, while the TEI pointer
> specification seemed to make almost immediate sense. This may be one of
> those left-brain/right-brain things, but whatever conflict has been
> occurring in the dozens of messages, it's been damnedly difficult to
> follow, as I'm sure many of us will agree.

I think the lack of news, and the difficulty of the debate is what 
I am also frustrated with.  This is not meant to be divisive, but 
because so many of us have so many projects, and now, a network 
that never sleeps, we need something that focuses our attention.
Eliot's proposal was the only one posted.  We can all focus 
on that, but because we don't know in a given period, what the 
ERB is focused on, we only thrash.  The problem is, some of us 
are implementing and were already doing that before this started.
Now we want to do the *right thing* and include XML support 
in our SGML Internet systems.  So, it is highly frustrating 
to work in a group in which, not true but apparently, we 
wait until the principals agree before we know what it 
is we must sanction, implement or critique.  The XML syntax 
decisions are easy compared to the hypermedia issues, so 
we are patient.
 
> Hearing that there is no essential conflict between HyTime and TEI makes me
> feel quite a bit better, but I don't understand why there has been such a
> longstanding conflict over this issue if the solution can be written by Tim
> and Steve so readily. 

Nor I.  I can only surmise like most of America, we all shut down about
Dec 22 and 
open back up about Jan 6.

> From my standpoint the solution as you describe it
> sounds great but the process by which we get to a draft proposal seems
> rather opaque.

Yep.  It's like a "trust me, the scheme handles it all" system. 
Opaqueness 
is good for software and bad for human communication.  This isn't aimed 
at anyone in particular, and certainly not Eliot who has made his 
proposal on the list and in the best spririt of cooperation.
 
len

Received on Tuesday, 21 January 1997 11:33:37 UTC