- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:52:59 -0700
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> True but insufficient and possibly misleading. > The reason for having multiple locator types is to > ensure that one can link into a document where one > may have read only rights or for example, the format > is not structured, say a binary image. HyTime/DSSSL > designers finally understood that markup is simply > YetAnotherNotation and made progress on the issue. > XML is YetAnotherNotation. The format handler type > determines the means of resolving the locator but if > names cannot be supported (what you call an anchor) > as locators, then other types have to be. > > Encouraging names/ids may be good practice, but not much more. > Linking into a binary image or a strip of film or even > a position of a book on a library shelf usually requires > more than a name. Not new news. I do understand the > maintenance issues of positional and chained locators. I agree that such mechanisms are necessary in some systems; I dispute whether they should be part of the Web architecture. Linking where you have read-only rights isn't robust; unlike with the resource/URI relationship, there is no guidance, much less guarantee, that a representation's structure is stable over time.
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 18:53:06 UTC