W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Comments on January 19 XLink working draft

From: John E. Simpson <simpson@polaris.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:48:12 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000120134047.00b68580@nexus.polaris.net>
To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
ERH noted:
 > More seriously, I don't like the solid lines between the pentagons and
 > the squares in the various pictures. To me these indicate an arc.
 > However, the arcs are indicated by the dashed lines. Since there are no
 > explicit links between resources without arcs, none should be shown.
 > There shoudl simply be unconnected pentagons (at least, until you
 > actually do show arcs). This more clearly makes the point of "Without
 > traversal rules being provided, the five resources are associated in no
 > particular order, with no implication as to whether and how individual
 > resources are accessed."

I agree. The other thing bothering me about the diagram is the labeling of 
the pentagon as "extended," which -- together with the solid lines which 
you mention -- implies that the pentagon is a local resource 
extended-linked to five remote resources. But then the *squares* (not the 
arcs) are all labeled "loc to remote rsrc," which sounds more as though the 
squares represent links rather than resources. Eh?

===================================================================
John E. Simpson            |  I spilled spot remover on my dog.
simpson@polaris.net        |  He's gone now.
http://www.flixml.org      |  (Stephen Wright)
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2000 13:47:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:40 GMT