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

Re: Relationship types

From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:52:16 -0600
Message-ID: <32E79740.2F5E@hiwaay.net>
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:


>    CHILD




>    NEXT



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 
> 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
at the level of portable, validatible files.

Has the DTD crept back into XML in a meaningful way?

Received on Thursday, 23 January 1997 12:04:18 UTC

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