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

Re: AW: Your comments on XLink CR

From: Eve L. Maler <eve.maler@east.sun.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:03:13 -0500
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20001218155849.025c8130@abnaki.east.sun.com>
To: "Hartmut Obendorf" <hartmut@obendorf.de>
Cc: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
At 08:02 AM 12/15/00 +0000, Hartmut Obendorf wrote:
>I think, I did mention one more typo in
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000OctDec/0056
>.html

Now fixed.

>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
>conceived
>this to be one of the Great New Features of XLink..

Certainly, and your example of grouping D->E->F separately from A->E 
certainly illustrates why the extended linking element itself is 
useful.  But "only one *kind* of arc" is intended to mean "no matter how 
many arcs there are, typically they will all be of the same type."  We have 
not distinguished "complex arcs" only because the processing scenario in 
extended links is identical whether there's one arc or many.

(Though if would be great if you wrote an article expanding on your ideas 
on link topology... :-)

Best regards,

         Eve
--
Eve Maler                                          +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    eve.maler @ east.sun.com
Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 16:01:54 GMT

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