W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2002

RE: two failings of XLink

From: Didier PH Martin <martind@netfolder.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:55:21 -0400
To: "'Micah Dubinko'" <MDubinko@cardiff.com>, "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001301c26681$57f9acb0$c801a8c0@didierhome>

Hi Micah

Micah said:
Tiny point--Extended XLinks don't generally "need" arcs defined--they
perfectly valid without any arc-type elements. But to omit them changes
structure of the link and thus compromises the expressive power of
Likewise for omitting the xlink:type="resource" element.

In other words, my position is that rather than defining prose
around or on top of inconvenient parts of XLink 1.0, it's better to just
make the needed (hopefully minor) changes to XLink.

Didier replies:
OK, Got it. So, concretely speaking, the Xlink specs may be changed and
made more explicit about the arc role, and link direction. So to speak
that a default direction is implicitly defined in an xlink extended,
thus that the link direction is from the xlink extended element to the
referred resource. Also, that a document containing one or several
extended links could be considered a link base document (with the rule
that the link direction has a default way).

Didier PH Martin
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 19:55:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:54 UTC