- From: Judith Slein <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:05:26 PST
- To: "ejw@ics.uci.edu" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
- Cc: "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>, "w3c-dist-auth@w3.org" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Yes, you are right about the definition of link. Keep it the way it is. At 12:35 PM 1/23/98 PST, Jim Whitehead wrote: >> >> I also wonder if the formal definition of link is right. It says: >> <!ELEMENT link (src+, dst+)> >> But the accompanying text says you are trying to allow for multiple links >> of the same type on the same resource, so do you really mean: >> <!ELEMENT link (src, dst)+> >> Or are you trying to allow a single link to have multiple sources or >> multiple destinations? Or both, perhaps: >> <!ELEMENT link (src+, dst+)+> > >Hmm. > >Right now we use the link element in the source property, which is defined: > ><!ELEMENT source (link)* > > >Combined with the definition of link: > ><!ELEMENT link (src+, dst+)> > >This allows the source property to contain multiple links, each of which >can have multiple sources and multiple destinations, as is shown in the >example in Section 12.11.1. It seems that there is a slight advantage to >keeping the definition of link singular (i.e., only one single link) since >this way you can specify a property to only include a single link. If link >was defined like: > ><!ELEMENT link (src+, dst+)*> > >It would be impossible to specify only a single link without creating a new >production. > >So, my inclination is to leave the specification as-is. Do you agree? >
Received on Friday, 23 January 1998 17:01:00 UTC