W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2014

Another XInclude 1.1 implementation (Fwd: About your "Updated transclusion proposal")

From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:39:52 +0100
Message-ID: <546B9278.4040901@kosek.cz>
To: "public-xml-core-wg@w3.org" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

please find below message from Hussein Shafie, they plan to implement
support for XInclude 1.1 in a next version of their product.

				Jirka


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: About your "Updated transclusion proposal"
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:20:29 +0100
From: Hussein Shafie <hussein@xmlmind.com>
To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>

Hello Jirka,

We plan to support XInclude 1.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude-11/) in
the next version of XMLmind XML Editor (v6.2).

We expect XInclude 1.1 to allow us to elegantly solve the duplicate ID
problem in transcluded content.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
About your "Updated transclusion proposal"
(https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook-tc/201409/msg00001.html)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* In my opinion, the transclusion processing you describe is not
specific to DocBook 5. Your specification may be seen as an extension of
the XInclude 1.1 specification which could be used for any document type
making use of ID/IDREFs (e.g. DocBook 4, TEI). That's why you may want
to choose a namespace for your attributes more generic than
"http://docbook.org/ns/docbook".



* I still don't see why someone would want to have so much control over
the IDs found in the transcluded content. For me, two options suffice:

1) Do not modify ID/IDREFs, that is, the equivalent of db:idfixup=none.

2) Adjust ID/IDREFs, that is, the equivalent of db:idfixup=auto and
db:linkscope=near.



* Let's say I'm wrong and that authors want full control over the IDs
found in the transcluded content. In such case, your specification seems
to be fine.



Now a few questions about "Updated transclusion proposal":

A) What to do with db:XXX attributes in the transcluded content?

I suggest to discard them as they are no longer useful. Moreover,
keeping them would make a DocBook 4 or TEI document invalid (yes, your
specification is also useful in the case of DocBook 4 or TEI documents).

B) Why use automatically generated prefixes rather than automatically
generated suffixes?

I would have chosen suffixes instead. Example:

<note xml:id="important-disclaimer"> is the original note.

<note xml:id="important-disclaimer---d2e62"> is transcluded copy #1.

<note xml:id="important-disclaimer---d2e22"> is transcluded copy #2.

All the 3 IDs start with the same "important-disclaimer" prefix, which
is nice
- because this clearly indicates that the 3 elements are related;
- when you use auto-completion to select an ID.

C) What's the default value of db:linkscope?

Your examples seem to suggest that it's db:linkscope=near when
db:idfixup is not "none".

D) What's the use of db:linkscope=local?

This option is very likely to cause cross-references errors.



Cheers,

Hussein



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
     Professional XML and Web consulting and training services
DocBook/DITA customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 rep.
------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bringing you XML Prague conference    http://xmlprague.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------


Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2014 18:40:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:48 UTC