Re: Extended Contextual Links

>  What we need to do, I think, is to say either that:
>  (1) another locator as described above is required, or

Yes. 

>  (2) any content of extended linking elements that is not a locator
>      element is to be treated as a resource.

No.  I think this reminds me of why I didn't want extended pointers to
have arbitrary content models in the first place.

Reason for above:  If you go with option (1), you have the same
problem you still haven't addressed with respect to simple links,
which gave rise to ericj's entirely reasonable confusion about
resource cardinality, namely nowhere to identify the role or hang the
title of that implicit internal resource.

I would like to argue that we need to augment the attribute set for
simple links to give us that functionality (give a role and a label to
the implicit resource).  My rule of thumb is that there should be no
difference at the application level between a simple link and a
two-resource extended link which happens to have at least one of its
resources in the same document as itself.  From that it follows that
BOTH the resources involved in a simple link need/deserve/imply a role
and a label/title/whatever.

If you take that suggestion, then you COULD allow implicit resources
in extended links, as per (1) above, but (in the purported words of
Richard Nixon) that would be wrong.

ht

Received on Tuesday, 20 May 1997 11:28:23 UTC