Re: spec-prod, xmlspec, docbook and Co.

well, if we added some RDF into the document...

chaals

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Eve L. Maler wrote:

  At 01:13 PM 10/17/01 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
  >| > - XMLSpec has more "special purpose" elements (e.g., <specref/>,
  >| >   <bibref/>, etc.  where DocBook has just <xref/>).
  >|
  >| I would suggest to keep the XMLspec format here (and in general to always
  >| prefer the "special purpose" elements over a general element). I don't know
  >| about the XSL but the DOM generator is doing different manipulation
  >depending
  >| on the element (specref, xspecref or bibref).
  >
  >I tend to favor the other approach myself, allowing the link behavior
  >to be determined by the thing it points to. But I don't feel very
  >strongly about it.

  This isn't practical in the general case.  For example, how would you be
  able to tell, by looking at the thing linked to, that a reference to
  another W3C specification is normative vs. non-normative?  I realize that
  XMLspec currently doesn't make this distinction, but it's something that
  has been brought up a few times.

  The association may have semantics that neither of the endpoints has on its
  own.  XLink and RDF teach us this. :-)

           Eve
  --
  Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
  Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Sunday, 21 October 2001 12:05:16 UTC