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

Re: XLink 1.1: "XML document" undefined

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:17:01 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <gm7ft15vht4borrbunmphrr9ehs30lkpks@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Norman Walsh wrote:
>| 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.

No, I already said that giving specific version numbers does not help,
you don't connect the terms "textual object" as used in e.g. XML 1.0 and
"ending resource" as used here properly. I can't tell whether I can use
some EXI document as ending resource, for example.

It seems you are trying to convey that applications must be able when
observing the applicable specifications to dereference the resource
identifier reference such that the resulting resource somehow conveys
an XML document as defined by some specifications, but the details are
not yet clear to me.

Your suggestion to publish errata when any problems with this definition
arises doesn't convince me, as you know, publishing errata doesn't make
them normative so this could not be implemented in conformance checkers
until the XML Core Working Group publishes a new Recommendation with the
fix or calls for review of proposed corrections and the changes get
approved.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:16:15 GMT

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