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

AW: Your comments on XLink CR

From: Hartmut Obendorf <hartmut@obendorf.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:02:28 -0000
To: <Daniel.Veillard@w3.org>
Cc: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LPBBKJNMAJPPLFOGMFKKEEEGCBAA.hartmut@obendorf.de>
Dear Daniel,

for the sake of completeness,

>     - Issue (editorial-obendorf) which was accepted
>     - Issue (editorial-obendorf2) which was accepted
>     - Issue (multiple-arcs) which was rejected
> Could you indicate if you accept the Working Group decision on
> those issues ?

Yes, of course I do. The first two being just extended typos, the third was
an uneasy feeling.

I think, I did mention one more typo in

#  At 08:48 PM 11/6/00 +0000, Hartmut Obendorf wrote:
#  >In section 2.2 there is an unusual use of the [Definition: ...] syntax,
#  >the "starting resource" is not defined in the brackets but in the
#  >sentence.
#  Will fix.

Mmh, it persists, I still feel that naming conventions in
(shortly after) http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/#dt-third-party
give the wrong impression:

Though it is not required, any one link typically specifies only one kind of
arc throughout, and thus might be referred to as an inbound, outbound, or
third-party link.

In my view, a link may very well specify more than one arc, indeed I
this to be one of the Great New Features of XLink..


I also feel unhappy that naming conventions (arc, arcrole, title..) seem to
considered as taboo - I still feel (again) that "role" is a mislading label.


Oh, Good Luck with PR and Happy Christmas!


  Hartmut Obendorf                    mailto:hartmut@obendorf.de
  Graduate Student                        http://www.obendorf.de
  Distributed Systems Group
  Universitay of Hamburg
Received on Friday, 15 December 2000 02:03:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:22 UTC