[sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question

Murray Altheim sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:59:17 +0100

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Murray Altheim
> | 
> | Perhaps I'm unclear on the real requirements we're talking about
> | here -- I was under the impression that a requirement for ID support
> | would be used by those building processors that would be able to
> | perform deserialization of XTM document instances.
> We've been talking at cross-purposes, then. I was thinking of
> requirements for the new CTM syntax. ID support is already required
> for XTM processors, so there's no need to add any such requirement.

Not entirely -- I was admittedly a bit confused/confusing in my
previous post, as I'd conflated the issue between both languages.
But you and I both have rather extensive experience with LTM, and
I must say I can see places where I don't know how I'd perform
certain kinds of references absent an ID, specifically in LTM.
And even if it were possible to do so, in certain instances (say,
in creating associations) it would be very inconvenient at best
to have to embed the Topic declaration within the association. As
things stand, I suppose any LTM author could optionally create an
ID for such circumstances. The question then becomes (I suppose):
under circumstances would absence of an ID be either a show stopper
or a major encumbrance? At this point it starts to seem similar to
the issue within XML/XTM.

Sorry about the confusion -- it's been a confusing morning here. I
think my planets are out of alignment.


Murray Altheim                          http://www.altheim.com/murray/
Strategic and Services Development
The Open University Library
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

        believe that everything is for
        you until you discover
        that you are for it
                               "The Robin and the Worm" by Don Marquis.