- From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:49:06 +0000
- To: dgd@cs.bu.edu (David G. Durand), w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 12:43 21/1/97 -0500, David G. Durand wrote: > >I wanted to be quiet, but this is a gross misrepresentation of the state of >affairs. A very deliberate one:-) >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), To see how yucky try applying it to the four or five cases I asked about specifically - the bit of my message everyone is careful to ignore. >You have not presented anything that you can do with >one syntax that you cannot do with the other. Thats the difference between being elegant and being yucky - the same effect of keeping off the sun can be acheived with silk or rags:-) >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. I have pointed out in other messages that BASE fails for multiheaded links. Show me how to use this idea with the examples I quoted. Incidentally why are the entitized equivalents of locsrce so much easier to implement than pointing to a separate element with an ID? ---- Martin Bryan, The SGML Centre, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029 WWW home page: http://www.u-net.com/~sgml/
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 1997 14:57:40 UTC