[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XLink resource confusion (long)
- From: "Eve L. Maler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: David Jackson <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 12:44:36 -0400
At 05:34 PM 5/6/01 +1000, jackson wrote:
>I think your example is better than the example in the draft spec
>"A simple link could be represented by an extended link in
>approximately the following way:
> xlink:label="local">Pat Jones</resource>
> xlink:title="..." />
> xlink:actuate="..." />
>"The simple equivalent of the above extended link would be
><studentlink xlink:href="...">Pat Jones</studentlink>
>I don't think these are equivalent. The simple link is itself its own
>local resource. The extended link _is not_ the local resource,
>but _has_ a local resource. (This is what i was saying in my first
You're right, they're not exactly equivalent because of this, but they
function just about the same. Chris's example gives an approximately
"participant-equivalent" view, whereas the example in the spec gives more
of an "arc-direction-equivalent" view (from local to remote).
> > This does not have local resources, and includes two loc elements and one
> > arc element within the beginning resource that weren't there in the other
> > example, but is otherwise equivalent.
>This is actually quite significant. These 'loc' and 'arc' elements are
>in fact content of the 'section' element in your example, so should
>be considered as part of that remote resource. Which means that it
>is not quite equivalent to the simple link version. (I know this is
>nit-picking a little, but it is perhaps necessary to see where it takes
>Of course we can agree to consider the 'loc' and 'arc' elements as
>not part of the remote resource which is the 'section' element. That
>is, if we agree that XLink-defined elements ('loc' and 'arc' in this case)
>are expressly excluded from the remote resource 'section'.
>However, i don't know if the draft spec as it stands gives us licence
>to do that. Does the spec say anything about this? It's perhaps implied.
No, it doesn't give this license. The resource is the content pointed to,
and with the bare-name XPointer in Chris's example, this nets out to being
a whole element node. FWIW, I think it would probably be too invasive to
tell applications not to count certain subelements as being part of a resource.
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Development eve.maler @ east.sun.com