Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal)

At 10:24 AM 2000-05-18 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>
>>Which is to say, there needs to be substantial independence between the way
>>names and types are managed and the way that parts and wholes of instances
>>are managed.  The relative URL convention is indeed tied to existing
>>virtual-packaging practices which leave web documents with embedded
>>dependencies on addressing relationships between themselves and the peers
>>they depend on.
>
>Er - okay.  We use relative URLs to point to images, DTDs, included
>entities, etc. I don't think that's packaging, unless the document itself
>is considered its own package.
>

The definition of packaging I am using is the creation of portable
super-documents. 

Using relative URI bindings between documents in a local address subtree in
effect creates a portable super-document.  Because it performs this central
function of packaging I termed it "virtual packaging."  

Al