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." AlReceived on Thursday, 18 May 2000 10:54:18 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC