[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Jan 18, 2004, at 3:36 PM, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 20:46, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>> I've posted a new version of RDDL (2.0) at http://www.rddl.org/
>>
>> Changes:
>>
>> -This version uses Tim Bray's non-XLink syntax which the TAG seems to
>> be solidifying on, and for which I haven't heard any opposition to for
>> at least 6 months. i.e..
>
> Sorry, I am not following the TAG any longer and had totally missed
> this
> proposal.
You may wish to make your issues known to the TAG because for the last
year or so that's where the vast majority of RDDL discussion has
occured.
>
>> <a rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";
>> rddl:purpose="..."
>> href="foo.html">Example</a>
>
> I feel uneasy with this syntax that seems broken to me.
>
> When I write:
>
> <rddl:resource id="xsd-schema"
> xlink:arcrole="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation";
> xlink:role="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; xlink:title="W3C XML
> Schema for examplotron" xlink:href="examplotron.xsd"
> xlink:type="simple"
> xlink:show="none" xlink:embed="none">
> <div class="resource">
> <h4>W3C XML Schema for examplotron</h4>
> <p>This W3C XML Schema (Proposed Recommendation, 16 March 2001) <a
> href="examplotron.xsd">schema</a> describes the examplotron vocabulary
> and can be imported in W3C XML Schema to validate examplotron
> schemas.</p>
> </div>
> </rddl:resource>
>
> I define a link between the rddl:resource fragment (ie the full
> description of the schema) and the schema.
>
> With the new syntax, if I write:
>
> <div class="resource">
> <h4>W3C XML Schema for examplotron</h4>
> <p>This W3C XML Schema (Proposed Recommendation, 16 March 2001) <a
> href="examplotron.xsd" rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
> rddl:purpose="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation";>schema</
> a> describes the examplotron vocabulary and can be imported in W3C XML
> Schema to validate examplotron schemas.</p>
> </div>
>
> I get a link between the <a/> element and the schema which is
> significantly poorer than the previous one (in this example, the
> content
> of the <a/> element is almost useless). And I can't embed the whole
> definition in my link because 1) the content model of the <a/> element
> doesn't allow it, b) it would be displayed as a ugly long link.
I see your objection. Would the following be acceptable:
<div rddl:nature="..."
rddl:purpose="...">
...
</div>
alternatively:
<rddl:resource
rddl:nature="..."
rddl:purpose="...">
....
</rddl:resource>
Jonathan
|
