W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Architectural issue: component specifications (was More on xlink- 23)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:06:57 -0400
Message-ID: <3D6FD061.7010808@w3.org>
To: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
CC: "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>

Micah Dubinko wrote:
> SSL writes:
> 
> 
>>XLink's interesting and occasionally useful, but I hardly think it's
>>worth inflicting on every XML spec that happens to need hypertext
>>linking.
> 
> 
> There's an architectural issue in there:
> 
> Increasingly, the W3C produces 'component' specifications that have no
> application in and of themselves, but rather serve as building blocks for
> other specifications. XLink and XForms are examples, as are XPath, XInclude,
> and XML Base.
> 
> The architectural issue is the nature of constraints placed on broader
> "containing specs" that might benefit from using the component specs.
> Desirable or to be avoided? For the XForms and XLink topic under discussion,
> this cuts both ways.

This issue is being discussed elsewhere within W3C as well.

I feel it's a policy issue rather than an architectural issue:

    Should/must all W3C specifications hencefore use the
    specification Y?

It's not clear yet where this type of policy requirement
should be made within a specification (in addition to
its technical constraints) or outside the specification.

  - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 16:10:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:10 GMT