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

Request for non-normative DTD that summarizes "XLink semantics"

From: Eve L. Maler <eve.maler@east.sun.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:10:36 -0500
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20001103130759.026593f0@abnaki.east.sun.com>
To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Cc: Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
Forwarding this request from Murray Altheim.  Daniel, can you add this as 
an editorial issue on XLink?

         Eve

>"Eve L. Maler" wrote:
> > At 11:27 AM 11/2/00 -0800, Murray Altheim wrote:
> > >I wish there'd been an XLink DTD published, in
> > >the sense of being able to understand the formal structure of elements.
> > >Has anyone made a "fake" XLink DTD (one that uses xlink:type to create
> > >element type names, then formalizes this structure)?
> > >
> > >Okay: can an XLink extended element contain XLink extended elements?
> >
> > Yes, but it has no XLink-specification-defined meaning.  This is why it
> > would have been hard to do a normative DTD; it would practically just say
> > ANY.  That said, though, there's a fairly useful extended-link example
> > that's used throughout the spec, which might illustrate what you're looking
> > for.
>
>Yes, and that has been helpful. I guess I would want an XLink DTD that
>stated "these are the defined structures and meanings associated with
>XLink 1.0, if you get validation errors they mean that the linking
>constructs you've used aren't defined by the XLink specification but
>may be valid in your application."
>
>It's just hard sometimes to know what is and what isn't actually an
>XLink-defined structure, and having only prose text and examples to
>go on is somewhat difficult.

--
Eve Maler                                          +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    eve.maler @ east.sun.com
Received on Friday, 3 November 2000 13:11:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:41 GMT