Lists Home |
Date Index |
Oh well... I guess we'll put together a
tomb robbing party sooner or later.
XML is YetAnotherNotation. I wonder
how hieroglyph engravers kept it all
I think this is at least the fourth time
over the last 12 years this inescapable
issue of having common link and locator
types that can be interpreted correctly
by different format handlers has come up
in my field of observation. The last time
was the IETM CGM vs IETM SGML wars. That
time it was clearly a notation war; although,
as has been correctly noted on the TAG list,
maintainability has to be described as well;
that is, some locator address mechanisms are
robust against changes (typically named
locations) whereas others aren't (typically
structures or byte offsets).
From: Arjun Ray [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com> wrote:
|| Makes me wonder how long it will take for the SGML concept of data
|| content notation to be redis^H^H^Hinvented.
| Probably as the TAG and the rest of the URI world digs into the problems
| of fragment IDs and comes to understand better why locator types are
| needed if different MIME types are to process the same syntax/name for a
| kind of locator.
Not while they're still in the throes of href disease and enthralled by
the magic of colonified names. But, mentioning the dreaded H-word would
break out the garlic and crosses in force.
Locator types? Who...wha...? ;-)