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

Re: Multi-headed indirect links

From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:43:15 -0500
Message-Id: <v02130503af0aacdeee20@[]>
To: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@SGML.U-NET.COM>, w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 6:42 AM 1/21/97, 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 wanted to be quiet, but this is a gross misrepresentation of the state of
affairs. The claim is that you have a syntax (entity references) that will
give you the indirection that you want. While it's not elegant (it's
actually kinda yucky), You have not presented anything that you can do with
one syntax that you cannot do with the other.

The issue of the locsrc is a different one, but if we can include an
equivalent of the "BASE" attribute (and I think we should), then we can do
the entitized equivalent of locsrc without the additional implementation
overhead of locsrc.

You may not be winning the argument about syntax, but I've seen no-one
dismiss your concerns about enabling link management (by _some_ mechanism).

>I ask myself whether the XML community has any
>interest in having multiheaded links? If so:

As Eliot and Len pointed out, this has not been in significant question for
quite some time.

    -- David

I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 1997 12:36:05 UTC

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