Re: XLink Note point 2 question [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 January 26]

Paul Grosso scripsit:

> Can someone point me to this wording or other
> wording that may mislead people into thinking
> they could define their own attributes in the
> XLink namespace?

Well, it seems I've put my foot into it (and now will be XML-cored).

What I really *should* have complained about was not that XLink implicitly
allows you to make up your own xlink: attributes, but that it does not
say you are non-conformant if you use xlink-typed elements in bogus ways.
So you can have a stray xlink:type="title" element outside a link, and
still be conformant, because the conformance clauses are only positive:
you do conform if you use Xlink elements in normal ways, but you are not
non-conformant if you use them in unexpected ways.

Here are the place where I think the language should be strengthened to
speak of non-conformantness rather than mere undefinedness.

4.2:  Other combinations have no XLink-dictated significance.

5.1 (after the bulleted list):  Subelements of the simple or
	extended type anywhere inside a parent extended-type element have
	no XLink-specified meaning. Subelements of the locator, arc, or
	resource type that are not direct children of an extended-type
	element have no XLink-specified meaning.

5.1 (next graf):  If other XLink attributes are present on the element,
	they have no XLink-specified relationship to the link.	[I think
	the next sentence should perhaps be left alone, though, because
	it has a suggestion for higher-level resolution.]

5.1.1:  If a resource-type element has anything other than an
	extended-type element for a parent, the resource-type element
	has no XLink-specified meaning.

5.1.2:  If a locator-type element contains nested XLink elements, such
	contained elements have no XLink-specified relationship to the
	parent link. If a locator-type element has anything other than
	an extended-type element for a parent, the locator-type element
	has no XLink-specified meaning.

5.1.3:   If an arc-type element has anything other than an extended-type
	element for its parent, the arc-type element has no
	XLink-specified meaning.

5.1.4:  If a title-type element contains nested XLink elements, such
	contained elements have no XLink-specified relationship to the
	parent link containing the title. If a title-type element has
	anything other than an extended-, locator-, or arc-type element
	for a parent, the title-type element has no XLink-specified meaning.

5.2 (after the second snippet):  If a simple-type element contains
	nested XLink elements, such contained elements have no
	XLink-specified relationship to the parent link.

	Also remove the first assumption in Appendix B.

Doing these things means that my RELAX NG schema will reject only
non-conformant documents (I think); currently it also rejects documents
that are technically conformant but have constructs with no XLink-specified
meaning.

-- 
They do not preach                              John Cowan
  that their God will rouse them                jcowan@reutershealth.com
    A little before the nuts work loose.        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
They do not teach                               http://www.reutershealth.com
  that His Pity allows them                         --Rudyard Kipling,
    to drop their job when they damn-well choose.   "The Sons of Martha"

Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 19:59:24 UTC