- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:48:48 -0500
- To: Terry Allen <tallen@fsc.fujitsu.com>, eliot@isogen.com, papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
- Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 8:26 AM 1/23/97, Terry Allen wrote: >What you were saying is that you want to specify a set of relationship >labels. I think the taxomony of relationships is orthogonal to the >mechanism for using them, and competition among different taxonomies >should be encouraged, hence XML itself should not specify a >taxonomy. Finally Terry has said something sensible on this topic. (Since Terry usually is sensible, this is less a surprise than the argument about link labels). Defining link types is as hard as defining a universal DTD. A lot of danger there. I'd rather stay out of it. didn't Murray Maloney's list get up to 40 types or more? I think Randy Trigg's thesis had 150 or so, but I don't have it available to check. On the other hand, a non-binding annex of useful names for common links might actually help people to understand (and thus use) link types. >You have not given a single example of a label you want to specify. >Please do so. I'm thinking something like maybe: internal-reference quote-external work cite-external-work footnote-or-annotation That list may already be too long, but as a list of suggestions it might be useful, and not as perniciously processing oriented as Len's "gosub". -- 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 Thursday, 23 January 1997 13:47:16 UTC