- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:57:00 -0500
- To: spec-prod@w3.org
Your "scheme" approach is very much like a CURIE - and I like that. I bet we could even do it in a way that was CURIE conforming... declare it as a 'prefix' and it would be dereferenced in the follow-your-nose manner that you would expect from RDF @prefix="spec: http://www.w3.org/URI_to_respec_bib/" somewhere in early in the spec, then transform the references. On 8/29/2012 5:20 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 at 10:38, Robin Berjon wrote: > >> 2) Scheme-based >> >> Just extend the current way of referring to definitions — which is simply <a>dfn-name</a> — with a magical scheme. So referring to a definition in another spec would just be <a href='spec:dom4'>Node</a> or <a href='spec:dom4#node'>the Node interface</a>. Yes, it violates WebArch. It's a source format, though, so I don't think that matters (send the Architecture Police!). >> > I like this one. Feels more natural than the other ones - and violating WebArch makes you feel like a standards-badass, which is a bonus! > > > -- > Marcos Caceres > http://datadriven.com.au > > > > -- Shane McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. +1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 13:57:27 UTC