[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names, was: Re: Quick edit
- From: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:01:21 -0500
> "Jonathan Borden" <email@example.com> writes:
> > >
> > I also agree with Jason's analysis. Practically since RDDL was
> > I've been going back and forth on what should an arcrole vs. role be
> > RDDL. Indeed one morning while driving to work, I suddenly became
> > that we'd got it all wrong, and confused an arcrole for a role. At the
> > of the day I'd conviced myself that arcrole was fine and that was
> But you go on to contradict what Jason, Tim and I are all saying! See
> > This is how I see it:
> > Software will use xlink:arcrole is to dispatch on a resource for a given
> > URI.
Let me add one point to this. Personally I agree (strongly I might add) with
your views on types and documents and if namespace URIs were used in a
consistent fashion then this would clearly be the way to go. No question.
The problem is that even among W3C RECs there fundamentally different uses
of namespace URIs vs. DOCTYPES and the best example of this is XHTML. Of
course this raises the old one vs. three namespace debate and I just want to
avoid this debate here, that's all. I *do* want to use xlink:role to
dispatch on type, its just that I don't want to loudly proclaim that type
based dispatching is the primary way to dispatch. That's why I think the
best way to explain this is that we dispatch on the name of the link.
Perhaps we can define xlink:role implicitly as the root namespace URI if
otherwise not specified.