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


From: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 16:54:17 -0700
Message-Id: <199701212354.AA032980861@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org

While structure and syntax of links is important, there are many other 
link concepts that need attention.  Since base has come up again, I will 
start a new thread with an old complaint. The current web definition for
"BASE" is not sufficient. 

There was a long thread in another list that identified that base is 
either,but not both:
	1) the url fragment to be used to complete partial URLs
	2) the url of the entity
The tread did not reach agreement that the current web spec was not
clear enough. There was agreement that the entity address was secondary.

Areas of conflict:
 - Should base value *always* be displayed as the address of the document
	in browsers, hotlists, and other processing applications?
 - Should the base be used to identify an alias for the document?
	If not, how?
 - Should the application of the base value to a partial URL always imply
	a new entity? 

(there...not a single TEI/HyTime term used)

Should not this group also be interested creating an othogonal definition
for these concepts? 

Dave Hollander

> >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. 
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 1997 19:04:05 UTC

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