| We need something clean and simple that lends itself to universal
| adoption by all Web formats; so the full-blown HyTime model may be
| too much to swallow. On the other hand, we need something that is
| powerful enough to handle dynamic documents (e.g., VRML linked to a
| client-side Java script which updates it).
Yes.
[Mich]
| Sorry if this is a silly question or is SGML different to VRML?
Not silly. SGML is the markup standard (ISO 8879) of which HTML
is an application. VRML is not, but that is not a reason
to think they are competitive. VRML can interoperate
with HTML and with other SGML applications. This
requires shared linking and location models primarily...
and engines. SGML parsers are available for free as
are SGML browsers and Web-capable viewers. This
is not the place to go into it deeply. See comp-text-sgml.
Paul Burchard's inquiry if a proposal for a more robust
model can be prepared is one to consider, IMO.
As the W3C seems to have a goodly amount of influence
over that issue, I don't know what the best way to go
about it is. I can post the models that we are currently
using for the US Navy MID project which are derived
from HyTime.
HyTime was written specifically to enable
core and optional levels of conformance. One
can add functionality a bit at a time and indicate
those which are being used in the instance. I suggest
that the best place to start is to review ISO 10744
(the Hytime std) and Steve De Rose and David
Durand's book as well as Eliot Kimber's book.
Also, contact Yuri Rubinsky ([email protected]) whose
company (SoftQuad) worked with the NCSA and
Synex to produce Panorama for the WWW.
There are many in the HyTime community who
would welcome the opportunity to work on such
a project. Some such as Yuri, already participate
in the W3C. For VRML, this issue must be
examined carefully by its principals in light
of what they believe can or should be achieved
for the next release. HyTime should be regarded
as an opportunity (probably one of many) to keep
the WWW on track as a public service utility
through a design whose levels of service reflect
a scale of users of varying needs and power.
A lot of agreements have to be made and
demonstrated to be useful. Your leaders
must reflect on that with an eye toward
the next decade of use (think for ten years
ahead for each ten months worth of work).
The SGML community has wrestled with it for
awhile. HyTime is a difficult standard and is being
revised to be aligned with DSSSL. Substantial
progress is being made, some of it to close
the gap between HTML and HyTime.
The question beyond that is,
should HTML be considered simply one
application among many possible using
SGML? That is, it is a clear, clean
way to do many WWW tasks, but not
the only one. For virtual enterprise tasks,
more powerful apps can be created based
on the same technology. With Panorama, that
may be the case.
In any event, we are about to discover
if the companies formed to market the WWW
and the W3C intend to dominate by keeping the
WWW forever in one application language which
they alone extend by "colonization", or if
will they compete on the power of supporting many
based on open international standards. This
is a critical moment in the WWW history about
which there will be much debate now, and
much reflection in the future. Hypermedia
is much bigger than HTML and VRML but both
are killer apps that make it profitable.
Profit isn't all, I understand. But it gets bigger
machines, more bandwidth, and more support.
The Ferengi's are ugly, but ultimately, they
end up with all the gold pressed latinum and
the best holosuites.
Compelling applications sell conceptstantial damage to us.
Len Bullard
!!! The hookup garbled that last sentence.
Should be:
Compelling applications sell concepts:
compelling design (elegance and robustness)
sell the industry. Exciting times!
BTW. I second the list moderator's call for
civility. Only that will keep you on track.
The SGML community was wracked by
"cleverness" like this for years, and it
did substantial damage to us.
Len Bullard