W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Is there a way in respec to hyperlink to external refs?

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:47:16 +0100
Message-Id: <DF775676-67E4-4D80-9553-50CD9920CA51@marcosc.com>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>


On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:41, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:

> Define a URN scheme for spec references. In a world where URNs work, the source format would be better than the destination.

Sorry, Larry. I'm having a hard time parsing what you said above. 

Can you please provide an example (or more detail) of what you mean? or explains why the current 'spec:id#frag' proposal will not work or why a URN would be better? 


> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w3c@marcosc.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:21 AM
> To: Robin Berjon
> Cc: Travis Leithead; Eliot Graff; spec-prod@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Is there a way in respec to hyperlink to external refs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 at 10:38, Robin Berjon wrote:
> 
>> 2) Scheme-based
>> 
>> Just extend the current way of referring to definitions — which is simply <a>dfn-name</a> — with a magical scheme. So referring to a definition in another spec would just be <a href='spec:dom4'>Node</a> or <a href='spec:dom4#node'>the Node interface</a>. Yes, it violates WebArch. It's a source format, though, so I don't think that matters (send the Architecture Police!).
>> 
> 
> I like this one. Feels more natural than the other ones - and violating WebArch makes you feel like a standards-badass, which is a bonus!
> 
> 
> --  
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 23:47:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 August 2012 23:47:49 GMT