Lists Home |
Date Index |
Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Monday, September 30, 2002, at 09:05 AM, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> > When you first think about it, it seems quite easy to say that
> > xhtml:img/@src has a type xlink:href and that xhtml:img has fixed
> > attributes xlink:type and friends. There must be some hidden reason why
> > this wouldn't work!
> I've always assumed that you could model XLink in XML Schema. Given
> the massive scope of XLink, if it can't model a little language with a
> total of less than a dozen elements and attributes all told,
> something's really wrong.
Presume you mean sensibly broad scope of _XML Schema_ :-) Yes it's
straightforward, and was done back when XLink went to REC .
> Doesn't mean that I think it should be compulsory.
> Anyhow, if you did this, you could default away almost all the XLink
> machinery but you'd still have xlink:href= on your linking elements,
Yes. But there might be another way, using schema annotation. I'm
trying to pull together all the proposals in this area, will summarise
to this list (and elsewhere) shortly.
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, 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
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]