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

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

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:47:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
cc: <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0110221144100.23460-100000@tux.w3.org>
A lot. For example, there are references to "the latest version of a spec,
whatever that may be", to a specific version, to a part within either of the
foregoing. There are references to an image, a movie, a sound file, which may
be normative depictions, or just illustrations. There are references to
metadata that is going to change, or to content that is known to be stable.
There are of course references to stylesheets, glossary entries, tables of
contents at various level (this massive spec, this section, this subsection).

And there are bound to be others I haven't thought of or haven't needed
myself.

Chaals

On 22 Oct 2001, Norman Walsh wrote:

  / "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com> was heard to say:
  | At 12:05 PM 10/21/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  | >well, if we added some RDF into the document...
  |
  | Right -- either RDF, or XLink arc roles that are harvestable as RDF if
  | you wish...  My point was that you can't tell by inspection what the
  | semantic is; a human has to decide and record it.

  Well, that may be true in the general case, but an xref to a bibl is
  probably a bibref and an xref to a div is probably a specref, etc.

  Individual elements work fine when there are only a few, but how many do you want?
Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 11:47:23 GMT

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