W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2003

Re[2]: Suggested text for 3.1 (small changes)

From: Chris Lilley <chris.lilley@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:24:12 +0100
Message-ID: <14427525679.20031201192412@wanadoo.fr>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Hello Stuart,

Monday, December 1, 2003, 6:33:32 PM, you wrote:

WS> Chris,

WS> It's common in a number of specs to establish in a set of common prefix
WS> mappings used throughout the remainder of the spec (unless stated otherwise)
WS> eg [1].

Which is fine, to shorten examples and stop them being crowded with
namespace declarations. But not when doing a walk through the specs

WS> I'm not sure how many example prefixes we actually use, maybe not
WS> enough to warrant such a subsection.

I don't think such a section is needed in any case.  My wording seems
to cover it fine.

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris.lilley@wanadoo.fr] 
>> Sent: 1 December 2003 16:17
>> To: www-tag@w3.org
>> Subject: Suggested text for 3.1 (small changes)
>> Hello www-tag,
>> Sending via an alternate email account, chris@w3.org is 
>> temporarily hosed.
>> Tim Bray wrote:
>> TB> 3.1 first numbered step, shouldn't that be xlink:href rather than
>> TB> "XLink href"?  In particular since you use that in step 2 :)
>> No. I chose the phrase "Xlink href" to mean "the href 
>> attribute in the XLink namespace" specifically because some 
>> people seem to think that the entire string "xlink:href" is 
>> magical. It isn't, it can be wibble:href and work just fine 
>> if correctly declared. Conversely, xlink:href can not work if 
>> you assign that prefix to some other URI.
>> The name of the attribute is, after all, href, right?

WS> No... it's a qualified name {http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink , href}.
WS> Unqualified 'href' is something else entirely :-)

But I didn't say it was an unqualified name. Since its an attribute
and since we already said it was in the XLink namespace, its clearly a
qualified name.

>> So, its  making a point. if that point is not clear then it 
>> should be reworded, but not omitted. I suggest clarifying as follows:
>> In 3.1 first bullet, replace "identified by the XLink href 
>> attribute" with "identified by the href attribute in the 
>> XLink namespace"

WS> ok

>> In 3.1 second bullet, replace "defines the attribute 
>> xlink:href" with "defines the attribute href".

WS> Hmmmm.... not sure I'd go for that. href is the local name of the attribute,
WS> but it is not its fullname. Is there a common notation for writing down
WS> qualified names (not qnames, but qualified names).

Well, you used one above. But I prefer your wording below.

>> That addresses Tim Brays consistency issue, further improves 
>> consistency by calling the attribute href as is done in the 
>> quoted section of the XLink spec, and addresses my 'no magic 
>> prefix' issue and is generally a better example of the spec 
>> spelunking needed to demonstrate in full detail how a link is 
>> traversed.

WS> BTW: I'm ok with the "Xlink href" attribute as you originally cast it, but
WS> consistency in the 2nd bullet would then suggest "...defines the Xlink href
WS> attribute."

That would be fine.

>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>>  Chris                          mailto:chris.lilley@wanadoo.fr

WS> Cheers

WS> Stuart
WS> --
WS> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#notation

Best regards,
 Chris                            mailto:chris.lilley@wanadoo.fr
Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 13:24:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:40 UTC