Re: XLink - where are we? [tiny amount o
james anderson (James.Anderson@mecomnet.de)
Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:39:04 +0100
David Brownell wrote:
>
> Graham Moore wrote:
> >
> > Eliot wrote
> >
> > > The last two [java class for elements / swing classes] are no different
> > > from requiring a style sheet--someone still has to provide
> > > a per-document or document type definition of what the styling should
> > > be
> >
> > The functional binding / class => element could be done as a default. Look
> > in the location where the document was acquired from using the element name
> > as the class name. It would just work, with no additional configuration
> > files. If no class exists then the node is just a node.
>
> That doesn't seem sufficient to me. What's the package name?
a mapping from the namespace name. (java packages may require an intermediate)
> What about classes that should represent multiple element types?
specialize the class appropriately
> What about the different semantics associated with different namespaces?
that's what packages are for.
> Suppose you want the element and class names to be different, perhaps because
> you and your users work with different natural languages?
support an architectural attribute, with appropriate defaults in the attribute definitions.