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

Re: Relationship Taxonomy Questions

From: Joe English <jenglish@crl.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:23:23 -0800
Message-Id: <199701232023.AA23444@mail.crl.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org

Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote:

> Joe English wrote:
> > Another category of link behaviour is "transclusion" or
> > "simultaneous presentation" linking.
>
> it can also be thought of and practically implemented
> as a "get" and avoid a lot of garbage description.

Ding!  Thank you!  I've been hunting for a good
word to describe this sort of link, and "get"
is just right: short, Anglo-Saxon, and to the point.
Much better than the polysllabic obfuscatory Latinate
terminology I've been using up to now.

> > [Jon Bosak]
> > > 2'. In particular, I think that it is of the utmost importance to
> > > distinguish meaning (relationship typing) from behavior (which
> > > includes presentation).  I think that the analogy between semantic
> > > tagging vs. style information in SGML and relationship typing vs. link
> > > behavior is an apt and powerful one.
>
> And one not embraced by the majority of web applications.  They
> may know something.


Wait a minute... I thought the whole premise of the XML
effort was that the architectural foundation of the
majority of Web applications -- HTML -- is not powerful
enough to enable the kinds of applications the SGML community
would like to see.  Or does that premise only apply to
HTML's fixed tag-set and not to its (admittedly primitive)
hyperlink mechanism?


--Joe English

  jenglish@crl.com
Received on Thursday, 23 January 1997 15:24:07 UTC

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