Re: Using ATTLIST to simplify the authoring of XLinks [Was: Dependency of XPointers upon DTD]

At 09:23 AM 9/8/00 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>"Eve L. Maler" wrote:
> > 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) ?

I'll get these added to the issues list; we're trying to go through all the 
remaining comments pretty soon.

>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.

A couple of other people have made similar comments in earlier versions, 
which led to changes.  We'll discuss this one too.  If we were to do this, 
obviously it would reduce the apparent "approval level" of defaulted 
attributes, too!

         Eve
--
Eve Maler                                          +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    eve.maler @ east.sun.com

Received on Friday, 8 September 2000 09:18:40 UTC