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

Re: ed: organization: conformance and terminology

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:22:09 +0900
Message-Id: <200003100302.MAA08434@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
At 12:12 00/03/09 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> I just read the spec
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xlink-20000221

> Similarly for [Defintion: ] link and linking element (what's the
> difference between those, by the way?) vs. "An XML
> element is XLink-conforming if ...".
> 
> In general, I find these definitions out of context unhelpful.
> (I did it that way for HTML 2.0, and in retrospect, I'm
> quite confident that it sucks as an organizational technique.)
> 
> Continuing down that list, I suggest moving [Defintion: ] arc into the
> context
> of section 3.1.3 "Traversal rules ...". If you want to collect
> the terms and definitions into a glossary, very well, but make that
> glossary refer to the definitions in context, rather than trying
> to make it stand on its own. I prefer such a glossary to go
> at the end, ala an index, but putting it up front is OK as long
> as the forward references are clear.
....

Maybe after doing what Dan suggests, the definitions at the start
can be moved to the end into a Glossary.


> The spec appears to define the term URI-reference (and resource?), but

It should be 'URI reference', not 'URI-reference' (see my comments
to the XPointer last call).


Regards,   Martin.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-#  mailto:duerst@w3.org   http://www.w3.org
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2000 22:02:31 GMT

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