On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 02:06:07PM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote: > / 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?
Okay :-) Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>