- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:19:46 -0400
- To: "Ron Daniel" <rdaniel@metacode.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-xml-linking-ig@w3.org>
Ron Daniel wrote: > > For the purposes of turning XML documents containing XLinks > into RDF, we can't rely on that rule being followed. Therefore, > you are correct that the right rule should be to add a character > such as # or / or ? if the namespace URI does not already end > in one. I'll make that change. > > [Ron Daniel] Whoops. Good catch. I'll reverse those. > > Thanks also for your earlier comments. I did not see > any of them asking for changes in the document, is that > correct? (FYI, on ChildSeq for the synthesized XPointer... > ChildSeq can start with a NAME, which is to be the value > of an attribute of type ID. That is probably the best > way to identify elements if possible.) > Glad to be of help. I'll make the changes to the XSLT. Some of my comments were just public moaning, that, no, don't require changes to document, but thanks for listening :-) I think that you are doing the right thing by suggesting but not mandating ChildSeq. Perhaps instead of using the term "should" use ChildSeq, you might say "ChildSeq is recommended", or somesuch. The problem I can forsee with ChildSeq is that, for example, if changes are made to the parent XML document, but not to the xlinks themselves, the ChildSeq's are going to change. I'm not sure that this will cause a problem, just my sense that xpointers try to be as invariant *as reasonably possible* to changes in the XML document. Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2000 14:30:13 UTC