- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 23:08:37 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 2:49 PM 1/21/97, Martin Bryan wrote: >At 12:43 21/1/97 -0500, David G. Durand wrote: >>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. I don't remember the examples, but we should have the possibility of separate address elements (I think eliot and I both suggested it, and I think Eliot did as well). Given that, you simply need to use separate address elements (each with its own base). This is one reason to enable such indirection. And since it runs in the "forward" direction from the link, it's easy to code. >Incidentally why are the entitized equivalents of locsrce so much easier to >implement than pointing to a separate element with an ID? Pointing to an element with an ID requires first searching for that element and resolving it, before interpreting the link (a step back before the step forward, as it were). Entity resolution is something people already have. Relative URL resolution is something they already understand, and implementors also have the (trivial) code to implement it in hand. And, I'm not sure that it buys us _that_ much. -- 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 23:07:02 UTC