- From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:22:09 +0900
- 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 UTC