- From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 09:23:04 +0200
- To: "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@east.sun.com>
- CC: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Eve, "Eve L. Maler" wrote: > > Hello again Eric-- We'll certainly list this as an issue and discuss > it. FWIW, here are a few reactions (speaking only for myself, as a busy > editor)... > > At 04:00 PM 9/1/00 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote: > >I'd like to point out the level of dependency of the current XPointers > >CR on DTDs which IMHO should be neutral to the schema system used. > > I'm not sure this is appropriate right now. DTDs are already a > well-established and well-supported part of a Recommendation (the XML > spec), whereas XML Schema is not yet standardized. I'm reluctant to add > examples -- even non-normative ones -- that could be obsoleted by syntactic > changes to XML Schema in the future. Yes, I see your point. Maybe just a note mentioning that one could rely on other applications to provide default attributes then ? And also, what about a warning to remind people who would like to go this way that they will become dependent of the ability of the tools and applications reading their document to support the method they will have chosen (which is true for ATTLIST declaration as well) ? > >The XPointers CR makes an intensive (non normative) usage of DTDs as > >examples of a way to simplify the authoring of documents using XLink > >attributes through implied values. > > > >Couldn't some examples using XML Schemas be provided as well to show > >that alternative usages are possible ? > > Actually, some of us are working on a writeup that shows how the future of > XLink might go with XML Schemas in the picture, so this aspect hasn't been > ignored. I don't know quite when this will be made public, though. I'll read it with interest when it will be made public, thanks ! A final comment about this usage... While I think it's a good idea to show how such a mechanism can facilitate the authoring of documents using XLink, I find that its usage in the CR makes it more difficult to read since for each example you have to read the example and go back to the matching ATTLIST definition (sometimes requiring to scroll up) to fully understand it. I would personally have found it easier to read (despite the added verbosity) if the corresponding XLink attributes had been included directly in the examples. Thanks for your answer. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist Dyomedea http://dyomedea.com http://xmlfr.org http://4xt.org http://ducotede.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 8 September 2000 03:22:04 UTC