- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:52:16 -0600
- To: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
Jon Bosak wrote: > > Assume that some syntax has been specified for labeling the > relationship between link ends. Hmm. Application language. > Consider the following incomplete > list of relationship types, lifted directly from existing proposals > for HTML standardization: > > PARENT Is-a > CHILD Has-a > PREVIOUS goto > NEXT goto > IMPLIES This one is neat. It can be a pure arc, but in practice it is goto or gosub parameter. > Is it possible to agree on a basic list of such types? No unless you intend as HTML did, to define an application language. > Is it useful to agree on a basic list of such types? Utility is a characteristic of the domain of the requirements. > If such a list were defined, would it be better to restrict the labels > that could be applied to a relationship to the choices on the list, or > would it be better to allow additional labels not on the list to be > applied on an ad hoc basis? No application language based on SGML contructs has succeeded in restricting the addition of tags or attibutes to the language unless it is a *dead* language. That is why most SGML applications interoperate at the level of portable, validatible files. Has the DTD crept back into XML in a meaningful way? len
Received on Thursday, 23 January 1997 12:04:18 UTC