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


From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 12:01:18 -0500
Message-ID: <33A2CE5E.470A@hiwaay.net>
To: Peter@ursus.demon.co.uk
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>.. the use of AUTO/EMBED seemed to be generic and
> valuable.  [It is isomorphic with the IMG tag in HTML:
> <IMG SRC="foo.gif"> automatically embeds foo.gif in the document at that
> point.  *How* it embeds it will probably be dependent on the way you represent
> your document in memory and could either be a link to a blob, or could expand
> the object as part of the grove.]
> [PeterMR, virtual student, HyTime 101]

It is a "get".  One reason for the obscurity of these topics is the
refusal to 
use less than 15 pound words to describe these concepts.  "Get this and 
put it here".  It is a behavior.

As to adding roles, the concept of architectural forms in HyTime as 
applied in the MID enabled a relationship from multiple architectures. 
This still seems to be a sensible approach as long as the underlying 
and fundamental concepts of groves are retained.

90% of the inability to come to terms on these subjects comes from 
the unwillingness to accept and apply these grounded concepts.  The 
grove is necessary for XML as it is for all SGML-centric applications. 
We can't dance around that forever and still meet the goals of 
simplicity.  On the other hand, it appears that XML is being wed to 
the DOM (nothing like a quick trip to Vegas) 
and soon the XML designers must decide where the turf is 
divided for the definitions of the data language and the framework which 
handles it.

Len Bullard
Received on Saturday, 14 June 1997 13:01:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:10 UTC