/ Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: | Should xlink:type="extended" be forbidden still ? I'm tempted to not | block them on a general basis. If there is elements with a predefined linking | semantic, then fixing them at the DTD level makes sense. On the other hand | blocking the use of advanced linking facilities because you don't | know a priori how and why they should be used sounds too strong. If | such construct actually appear that may be something to learn from rather | than forbid, no ? And the arcrole should take care of the possible different | semantic that may get applied to links in a given context.
I just don't think extended links make sense for "inline" elements. It's pretty clear what this means: <para>What about the <hardware xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://www.banzai-institute.com/">overthruster</hardware>? </para> But what does this mean: <para>What about <hardware xlink:type="extended"> <locator .../> <locator .../> <locator .../> <arc ../> <arc ../> <arc ../> <arc ../></hardware>?</para> It isn't clear what should be rendered or how. (If I had included a resource element, you could almost guess what to do. Almost.) I think we can move forward in stages, if we allow only simple links for now, we can easily add extended links later (in a point-release as it'd be a backwards compatible change). Comments? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Nothing ever gets anywhere. The http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | earth keeps turning round and gets Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | nowhere. The moment is the only | thing that counts.--Jean Cocteau ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>