- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:54:42 -0500
- To: "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>
Thanks Norm. I think you have an understandable writeup, but I'll go on a little further here in case my assumptions are challengeable (opportunity for me to learn). In HyTime, as you know, a lot of the complexity of the specification (pre Groves) was in specifying a separation of link and location (link and anchor) and then in specifying anchor types based on the resolution strategy given a file of some type where the type of file could vary based on characteristics such as the degree of structure, therefore the actual means of addressing the location varied. That's a really loose description, but most here know the problems: 1. There may be no anchors. 2. The given structure isn't predictable or known so the anchor type isn't known. 3. The author of the link may not have write access so no anchors can be created inline. 4. Out of line locators are useful but fragile although in principal, a 404 is still workable. In the face of such problems, the web cut the Gordian knot first by linking primarily to one application language type (HTML), using indirection for a limited set of image types and then to XML where all of the typical linking strategies are well known. It is in the face of such things as images that one has to resort to an anchor type and the handler of that type must either make known it's preferred means, typically, named locations. Writing the link does require some information about the endpoint even if as simple as the name of the location (eg, the fragmentID) or the name or the thing that knows the name of the location (the resolver for an indirect address). In practice, there should be a limited set of locator types which application vendors agree to support for non-XML formats. It is easy enough to embed the link because that assumes an editable format for which a linking production exists. The difficulty is relying on the locator and how it is addressed. len -----Original Message----- From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@sun.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 11:29 AM To: www-tag@w3.org Subject: Re: Arch Doc: New section on embedding links in representations -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 / "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> was heard to say: | "Simple, single-ended, single-direction, inline links are not the most | powerful linking paradigm imaginable. But they are very easy to | understand. And they can be authored by individuals (or other agents) | that have no control or even access to the other end point." | | The problem here is the statement is not true | of the example presented. In what context | is it true that the author of <a href="#foo" > | does not control or have access to <a name="foo">? Well, writing the link requires no control over the endpoint. If, however, the author of the endpoint didn't provide any anchors, that is a bit of a problem. For XML, it's a problem that can be addressed with the XPointer Element scheme. And I suppose "even access" is overstated, I meant "write access" and I should have said so. | In the case where no access or control is enabled, | a simple inline link won't work. A system that | has a notion of document type (or NOTATION) and | of a standard protocol for passing an identifier | in a form which the handler for that type can | interpret is needed. Hyperlinking to external | sources requires more than the hyperlink itself. | Thus HTTP, MIME, etc. HyTime went a bit further | and described all of the classes of representation | of an address by the nature of it's resolver (thus, | an address by named location, offset, and so on). | | So the example is short on the understanding that | a lot of *machinery* for want of a better term is | hiding the mappings. That is the reason for the | success, not the named location representation itself. | | I know you know that, but the text is oversimplified. | Is that what is wanted here? I was trying to balance the full complexity of link traversal with the relative simplicity (and power) of providing linking elements in representations. I'll revise it some and repost it shortly. Be seeing you, norm - -- Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | Everything we love, no doubt, will pass away, XML Standards Architect | perhaps tomorrow, perhaps a thousand years Web Tech. and Standards | hence. Neither it nor our love for it is any Sun Microsystems, Inc. | the less valuable for that reason.--John | Passmore -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQE+9yrTOyltUcwYWjsRAusIAJ9/rlXP8wRR9E+sLvkq+KzdQIJ9jwCfZL/s DETgT9+f9x0ZlINpNPL7FCM= =Ugkq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 12:54:58 UTC