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

RE: Name for XML-LINK (Was: Re: Initial draft of XML-Link...)

From: Jean Paoli <jeanpa@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:38:21 -0800
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-16-MSG-970127233821Z-7671@INET-05-IMC.microsoft.com>
To: "'Jon Bosak'" <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>, "'cbullard@hiwaay.net'" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Cc: "'w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org'" <w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org>
I fully agree with Len.

My take : We already have to sell today to the Web community 
the whole xml concept of extensibility and I think inventing
tons of words does not help focus.

Let us make it simple. My proposal:

xml syntax
xml link (or xml hypertext)
xml stylesheet

>From: 	Len Bullard[SMTP:cbullard@hiwaay.net]
>Sent: 	Monday, January 27, 1997 10:46 AM
>To: 	Jon Bosak
>Cc: 	w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
>Subject: 	Re: Name for XML-LINK (Was: Re: Initial draft of XML-Link...)
>Jon Bosak wrote:
>> [Tim Bray:]
>> | 3. Note that one of the areas remaining undecided is: what do we call
>> | this puppy?  In the draft, it veers amusingly between being called XHL
>> | (Extensible Hyper Linkage) and XHA (X. Hypertext Architecture),
>> | depending on who wrote the section; Jon Bosak always says "XML-Link",
>> | but I don't know if that represents an opinion.
>> I would like to keep "XML" in there somewhere as a marketing ploy to
>> build name recognition for a suite of integrated (albeit separately
>> usable) standards, but that's just my opinion.
>> | I *think* [Jon, shout if you disagree] that this would be an area to
>> | which the WG could usefully turn their attention, during the very
>> | short time before we start to emit large numbers of votable items in
>> | Michael's A., B., C., style to provide a structure for the meat &
>> | potatoes debate.
>> Sure, as long as it doesn't distract from the rest of the discussion.
>> Perhaps people who have an opinion on this could simply state it and
>> try to avoid protracted interchanges.  The business of naming will be
>> decided by the ERB, and they will remember brief statements better
>> than long debates.
>> Jon
>XML works fine.  The issue of separation is one for the normative 
>text.  I think expressing the idea that this is an integrated suite is
>important to understanding the overall intent of XML and its flexibility 
>for implementors.  The WG has provided a set of specifications that 
>taken as a whole, describe an integrated design for applying generalized
>markup to Internet hypermedia.  The separability of the components 
>of the specification enable each implementation to be effective within 
>the required environment.  Thus, an implementor can plan for a stable 
>migration to the entire suite, choose a valid subset for a particular 
>requirement, or implement the entire suite.
>len bullard
Received on Monday, 27 January 1997 18:39:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:07 UTC