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

Some comments on XML Linking

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:51:18 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20000317191111.00bb55b0@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Hello, here are some comments on XML Linking:

Only RFC 2396 should be cited, or RFC 2396 should
be clearly identified as normative, whereas the other
URI-related RFCs should be clearly identified as
obsolate.

The definition of 'URI reference' should normatively
point to RFC 2396. The current explanation or something
similar can be kept, but it has to be clear that this
is an explanation rather than a definition.

The definition of 'URI reference' also has to include
a refernce to the RFC about the update of RFC 2396 for
IPV6. (see a previous mail).

'URI-refernce' should be changed to 'URI refernce'
to correspond to general practice.


In 2.3, Attribute defaulting is introduced. However,
because the DTD fragments with the defaults appear
only some pages later, the rest of section 2, and
the first part of section 3, is rather difficult
to read or understand. Reorganizing the spec on
a large scale would solve that problem.
In 2.3, at least one example with all the relevant
DTD fragments should be given.

A similar problem happens in the Note before the
example before 3.1.1: the meaning of the note is
very unclear until much later.

'CompSci' as a title value should be expanded to
'Computer Science'. Otherwise, it may be difficult
to guess for people without English mother tongue.

In 3.1.3, 4. paragraph, there is a spurious space
that is part of the link after (show and actuate).

The use of 'cname's for roles is frightening.
Using URIs directly would simplify things a lot.



Regards,   Martin.
Received on Friday, 17 March 2000 07:50:18 GMT

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