[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way to dispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Henry S. Thompson)
- To: Jason Diamond <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:49:25 +0000
Jason Diamond <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > This approach covers it all. The purpose of each xlink is given
> > in human and
> > machine form, the nature of the resource itself is indicated by the role
> > attribute. In this example, we can clearly distinguish between
> > the purpose
> > and the nature of each resource, even when the same kind of
> > resource is used
> > for different purposes.
> Your example details exactly what I was imagining. Thanks for providing such
> a clear explanation.
> I especially appreciate your choice of words: purpose and nature! Words like
> "type" need to be wiped from our vocabulary.
> I'm assuming that you intend for a resource's purpose to be identified by
> its xlink:arcrole attribute and its nature by its xlink:role attribute, no?
I agree with Thomas's proposal and Jason's assessment of it.
That's three 'aye' votes: motion passed :-)
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: email@example.com