- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:47:16 +0100
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:41, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote: > Define a URN scheme for spec references. In a world where URNs work, the source format would be better than the destination. Sorry, Larry. I'm having a hard time parsing what you said above. Can you please provide an example (or more detail) of what you mean? or explains why the current 'spec:id#frag' proposal will not work or why a URN would be better? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w3c@marcosc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:21 AM > To: Robin Berjon > Cc: Travis Leithead; Eliot Graff; spec-prod@w3.org > Subject: Re: Is there a way in respec to hyperlink to external refs? > > > > > 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 > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 23:47:48 UTC