W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1998

RE: Comments on 06 spec

From: Judith Slein <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:05:26 PST
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980123170526.009bc4b0@pop-server.wrc.xerox.com>
To: "ejw@ics.uci.edu" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Cc: "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>, "w3c-dist-auth@w3.org" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Yes, you are right about the definition of link.  Keep it the way it is.

At 12:35 PM 1/23/98 PST, Jim Whitehead wrote:
>>
>> I also wonder if the formal definition of link is right.  It says:
>> <!ELEMENT link (src+, dst+)>
>> But the accompanying text says you are trying to allow for multiple links
>> of the same type on the same resource, so do you really mean:
>> <!ELEMENT link (src, dst)+>
>> Or are you trying to allow a single link to have multiple sources or
>> multiple destinations? Or both, perhaps:
>> <!ELEMENT link (src+, dst+)+>
>
>Hmm.
>
>Right now we use the link element in the source property, which is defined:
>
><!ELEMENT source (link)* >
>
>Combined with the definition of link:
>
><!ELEMENT link (src+, dst+)>
>
>This allows the source property to contain multiple links, each of which 
>can have multiple sources and multiple destinations, as is shown in the 
>example in Section 12.11.1.  It seems that there is a slight advantage to 
>keeping the definition of link singular (i.e., only one single link) since 
>this way you can specify a property to only include a single link.  If link 
>was defined like:
>
><!ELEMENT link (src+, dst+)*>
>
>It would be impossible to specify only a single link without creating a new 
>production.
>
>So, my inclination is to leave the specification as-is. Do you agree?
>
Received on Friday, 23 January 1998 17:01:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:44 GMT