Re: Some comments on XML Linking

On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 09:51:18PM +0900, Martin J. Duerst wrote:
> Hello, here are some comments on XML Linking:

  Hi Martin,

 The Working Group basically agreed with your suggestion, and
some of them are already implemented in the lastest WD (members only)
  
  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2000/04/xlink-20000404.html

> Only RFC 2396 should be cited, or RFC 2396 should
> be clearly identified as normative, whereas the other
> URI-related RFCs should be clearly identified as
> obsolate.
> 
> The definition of 'URI reference' should normatively
> point to RFC 2396. The current explanation or something
> similar can be kept, but it has to be clear that this
> is an explanation rather than a definition.
> 
> The definition of 'URI reference' also has to include
> a refernce to the RFC about the update of RFC 2396 for
> IPV6. (see a previous mail).
> 
> 'URI-refernce' should be changed to 'URI refernce'
> to correspond to general practice.

  Agreed,  the referecnes to obsoleted URI related RFC have
been removed already.

> In 2.3, Attribute defaulting is introduced. However,
> because the DTD fragments with the defaults appear
> only some pages later, the rest of section 2, and
> the first part of section 3, is rather difficult
> to read or understand. Reorganizing the spec on
> a large scale would solve that problem.
> In 2.3, at least one example with all the relevant
> DTD fragments should be given.
> 
> A similar problem happens in the Note before the
> example before 3.1.1: the meaning of the note is
> very unclear until much later.

  Agreed, in Section 5.1, the Note before the example has
been removed, and the example is now a complete version

> 'CompSci' as a title value should be expanded to
> 'Computer Science'. Otherwise, it may be difficult
> to guess for people without English mother tongue.

  Agreed, to be done

> In 3.1.3, 4. paragraph, there is a spurious space
> that is part of the link after (show and actuate).

  We were not able to find it anymore. This is probably
due to the document reorganization and fixed.

> The use of 'cname's for roles is frightening.
> Using URIs directly would simplify things a lot.

  This was changed. We don't use QName for role attribute anymore.
C.f. [XL75] in our Issue list (members only)
  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/1999/07/LinkingIssueList.html#XL75

  thanks for your feedback,

Daniel

-- 
Daniel.Veillard@w3.org | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes  | Today's Bookmarks :
Tel : +33 476 615 257  | 655, avenue de l'Europe | Linux XML libxml WWW
Fax : +33 476 615 207  | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | Gnome rpm2html rpmfind
 http://www.w3.org/People/all#veillard%40w3.org  | RPM badminton Kaffe

Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 08:51:05 UTC