Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Len Bullard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Peter Murray-Rust <Peter@ursus.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:21:10 -0600
Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> My gut feeling is that a PhaseI API can be extended to a PhaseII API
> without breaking it seriously. (We shall doubtless define things like
> Link, MultiLink extends Link, etc.) It seems (again from my position of
> ignorance) that your concern is 'if we create an API for PhaseI and don't
> think about the effect on PhaseIII, we could find ourselves in serious
> trouble'. I can't help there. However if we _can't_ easily extend
> NXP, Lark, etc then we are going to have a fairly hairy system to work
It appears that an IDL-specified API that expresses the SGML property
set used in the XML application profile is the most flexible proposal.
A Java-implementation from that would be the most flexible product.
The XML Link specification is not, (I believe) an SGML property
set issue since these are application semantics. It is important
to express these in the IDL.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (firstname.lastname@example.org)