W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: XLink 1.1: "XML document" undefined

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:28:42 -0500
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <87d5ihejbp.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
|>No, I don't think it would, but the Core WG couldn't really tell what
|>your question was.
|
| I want "Any linkbase specified as the ending resource of an arc with
| this special value must be an XML document" to be rephrased such that
| I can easily derive an algorithm from the definition that would tell
| whether some XLink markup meets the constraint, e.g. to add support
| for XLink 1.1 to the W3C Markup Validator.

I get the impression that you would be satisfied if that was changed
to say:

  Any linkbase specified as the ending resource of an arc with
  this special value must be an XML 1.0 or XML 1.1 document

Is that right?

I don't frankly see the benefit. Would you find this satisfactory?

  Any linkbase specified as the ending resource of an arc with
  this special value must be an XML document as defined by XML 1.0,
  XML 1.1, or any subsequent version of the XML specification?

As far as I can see, nailing down the XML version only means that if a
subsequent version is ever published, we have to publish an erratum to
XLink 1.1 to add it to the list.

However, assuming that you would be satisfied with my first proposal
above, I might personally be willing to make the change. If you're not
satisfied by that, then I don't think I understand the issue yet.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 15:35:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:46 GMT