On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:59 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-25 00:35]:
2) You can break lines between elements, but you can't inside
an attribute, so it's better for display for humans.
That’s not what the XML spec says.
Doh! Who knows where I got that idea. I still prefer to have each
piece of data in it's own place.
What if someday somebody does come up with a non-enclosure use
for this (which hardly seems far-fetched to me--enclosures
aren't the only things that get mirrored or exist in multiple
formats)? They'll have to define a new mechanism for it which
is either going to be identical except for element names, or
they're going to invent another way to do the same thing.
Either way, the pain of supporting both is completely
unnecessary unless there's potential for generality causing
problems.
If it isn’t obvious from the start what it means that there’s
an alternative-link for a via link or a previous or next link,
then clients will have to support each of these use case
separately. So on the implementor’s end, there’s no discernible
difference between the pain of supporting either approach.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
one might do this if they want and alternate of a "next" link?
<link rel="next" xml:id="foo" ... />
<link rel="alternate-enclosure" x:alternate-of="foo" ... />
If that's what you mean, then sure, the code for that would be the
same as for:
<link rel="next" xml:id="foo" ... />
<link rel="alternate-link" x:alternate-of="foo" ... />
...but it would sure look odd. I see no advantage to naming these
things in terms of enclosures.
