- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 11:23:39 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org > Please prepare for this by taking a look at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/ And here's my attempt at a summary. Comments more than welcome. LEIRI link to IRI-bis --------------------- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/ 0000 Bottom line: We need to spell out Legacy Extended IRIs in the XLink spec and use the LEIRI abbreviation in IRI-bis. xlink:fromID , xlink:toID ------------------------- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/ 0002 Quoting: ...in order to have the option to ensure that the source and/or target of a particular xlink was unique, I believe having such attributes as xlink:fromID and xlink:toID used in conjunction with xml:id (or with an attribute of type ID) could meet that demand I have no idea what he's talking about. clarifying xlink:actuate and xlink:show --------------------------------------- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/ 0004 Quoting: ...be[ing] able to specify (in a more concrete way than just assigning the value of "other") the pattern used for identifying the conditions under which xlink:actuate or xlink:show will have a particular value. I'm not sure I quite appreciate the need, but I suspect the answer is that this is beyond the remit/requirements for XLink 1.1. xlink:titlerole --------------- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/ 0005 Quoting: While xlink:title and xlink:type="title" offer great flexibility in allowing markup to serve in a descriptive role, I believe that it might be even more flexible to add xlink:titlerole and xlink:type="titlerole" to indicate that a particular xlink:title attribute or a particular element, respectively, belonged to a particular category of descriptive title. Suggested response: Beyond the remit/requirements for XLink 1.1. migration from ISO usage of xsd for xlink 1999 ---------------------------------------------- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2008AprJun/ 0006 Apparently someone published an XSD for XLink at http://schemas.opengis.net/xlink/1.0.0/xlinks.xsd "because there was no XML schema published for the 1999 version of xlink" that has been referenced by other organizations and standards. The question is how that compares to the one we are publishing now in XLink 1.1. I think someone needs to look at that XSD and see if there are any major differences with ours and, if so, figure out if it makes sense to tweak anything or just tell them that ours wins. In any case, the XSD in XLink is non-normative. paul
Received on Monday, 5 May 2008 15:27:56 UTC