W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: spec-prod, xmlspec, docbook and Co.

From: Eve L. Maler <eve.maler@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:25:44 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20011017172304.021eda30@abnaki.east.sun.com>
To: spec-prod@w3.org
At 01:13 PM 10/17/01 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
>| > - XMLSpec has more "special purpose" elements (e.g., <specref/>,
>| >   <bibref/>, etc.  where DocBook has just <xref/>).
>|
>| I would suggest to keep the XMLspec format here (and in general to always
>| prefer the "special purpose" elements over a general element). I don't know
>| about the XSL but the DOM generator is doing different manipulation 
>depending
>| on the element (specref, xspecref or bibref).
>
>I tend to favor the other approach myself, allowing the link behavior
>to be determined by the thing it points to. But I don't feel very
>strongly about it.

This isn't practical in the general case.  For example, how would you be 
able to tell, by looking at the thing linked to, that a reference to 
another W3C specification is normative vs. non-normative?  I realize that 
XMLspec currently doesn't make this distinction, but it's something that 
has been brought up a few times.

The association may have semantics that neither of the endpoints has on its 
own.  XLink and RDF teach us this. :-)

         Eve
--
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 17:25:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:11 GMT