W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > May 2008

RE: XLink comments [was: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2008 May 7]

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 11:23:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020B50AEE3@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 

> Please prepare for this by taking a look at

And here's my attempt at a summary.  Comments more than welcome.

LEIRI link to IRI-bis

Bottom line:  We need to spell out Legacy Extended IRIs in
the XLink spec and use the LEIRI abbreviation in IRI-bis.

xlink:fromID , xlink:toID
 ...in order to have the option to ensure that the source
 and/or target of a particular xlink was unique, I believe
 having such attributes as xlink:fromID and xlink:toID used
 in conjunction with xml:id (or with an attribute of type ID)
 could meet that demand

I have no idea what he's talking about.

clarifying xlink:actuate and xlink:show
 ...be[ing] able to specify (in a more concrete way than
 just assigning the value of "other") the pattern used for
 identifying the conditions under which xlink:actuate or
 xlink:show will have a particular value.

I'm not sure I quite appreciate the need, but I suspect 
the answer is that this is beyond the remit/requirements 
for XLink 1.1.

 While xlink:title and xlink:type="title" offer great
 flexibility in allowing markup to serve in a descriptive
 role, I believe that it might be even more flexible to
 add xlink:titlerole and xlink:type="titlerole" to indicate
 that a particular xlink:title attribute or a particular
 element, respectively, belonged to a particular category
 of descriptive title. 

Suggested response:  Beyond the remit/requirements for XLink 1.1.

migration from ISO usage of xsd for xlink 1999

Apparently someone published an XSD for XLink at
"because there was no XML schema published for the 
1999 version of xlink" that has been referenced by 
other organizations and standards.  The question is
how that compares to the one we are publishing now
in XLink 1.1.

I think someone needs to look at that XSD and see if
there are any major differences with ours and, if so,
figure out if it makes sense to tweak anything or just
tell them that ours wins.  In any case, the XSD in XLink
is non-normative.

Received on Monday, 5 May 2008 15:27:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:39 UTC