[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- From: Tim Bray <email@example.com>
- To: Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:50:00 -0800
"The rddl:resource element represents a simple xlink (using the attributes defined in the XLink namespace), and an additional attribute content-type which provides for an optional content type specifier."
Is grammatically awkward; I think the parentheses need to become commas like
"The rddl:resource element represents a simple xlink, using the attributes defined in the XLink namespace. It has an additional attribute content-type which provides for an optional content type specifier."
(mind you, with every day that goes by, I'm becoming more in favor of
nuking content-type, but let's see what other people say).
Just before the "Attributes" section, we need an example of an
rddl:resource; I'd just grab one of ours from below and paste it in,
with the lable "The following is an example of an <code>rddl:resource</code>
element, taken from this document.
I'm wondering if we should say, in the arcrole= section, anything
along the lines of "if the resource type is an XML language and
its definition specifies a namespace, the <code>arcrole</code> value
should be the same as the namespace name."
Why the "#resource" on the end of the role= value. Not disagreeing,
just not sure what it buys us.
The new resources, including the ZIP, are cool. Once you get your
java interface worked out (I've seen nothing to disagree with
yet) that can go in there too.