W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org > August 2012

RE: use cases

From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:31:58 -0700
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org" <public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EB42045A1F00224E93B82E949EC6675E16B0580EEB@EXCHG-BE.marklogic.com>
I suggest we are biting off too many things at once.

A) Define standard HyperMedia attributes
B) Try to avoid issues with namespaces
C) Try to use Liams proposal which has not been widely accepted (yet, sorry Liam ... )
D) Try to make compatible with	MicroXML

I suggest starting doing just #A in the "normal" way by declaring a prefixed namespace.
Thats really the hard part.

After that there can be refinements on how to implement the same abstract concepts in other representations.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
dlee@marklogic.com
Phone: +1 812-482-5224
Cell:  +1 812-630-7622
www.marklogic.com

This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are confidential. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail communication by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:25 PM
To: public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org
Subject: Re: use cases

On 23/08/2012 20:54, Rushforth, Peter wrote:
> David C.: I still don't see where I'm putting attributes into a
> namespace where they don't have one to begin with.



well you are certainly doing that but I'd misread Liam's proposal. It
does support that (with the system needing to supply a system defined
prefix if you need the resulting model to be compatible with xml 1.0 +
namespaces.

The comment quoted above is a litte strange to me as you explicitly
called out that this is happening:

> tell the client that href means
> {http://example.com/namespaces/hypermedia}href

unprefixed attributes (in XML 1.0+NS) are always in no namespace.
You are using Liam's namespace proposal to interpret unprefixed
attributes as being in the hypermedia namespace. I queried whether that
was an extension to Liam's proposal but as Liam confirmed that is
supported by the draft. If your namespace definition document says that
href="zzz" should be interpreted as
{http://example.com/namespaces/hypermedia}href ="zzz" then it can be
parsed as such and if serialised as XML 1.0 would come out as
ns1:href="zzz" xmlns:ns1="http://example.com/namespaces/hypermedia"
which is OK. (although actually you'd get more traction and more
immediate implementation (if only partial) coverage if you used the
existing xlink namespace rather than inventing a new one.

an unobtrusive namespace document (or the recently re-proposed
architectual forrms:NG ) that said href attrbutes were xlink:href
would go a long way to meeting the major use cases for hypermedial
attributes.

David
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 21:32:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 August 2012 21:32:26 GMT