On 5/5/09 3:48 PM, "Grosso, Paul" <> wrote:
> After review, Jeff and I are generally okay with this,
> but if we're planning to approve something at next week's
> telcon, we need to be sure we know what we're approving.
> In most cases, Eliot's email does do that, but not in all.
>
> [Note, despite the subject--which suffers from legacy--this
> proposal is just about cross-references to topicheads. It
> does not mention/address implicit title-only topics.]
>
> More detailed "editorial" comments below (nothing technical).
Sorry for the confusion--my haste to get something to the TC in advance of
today's meeting.
>> 4. Under "data":
>>
>> - href= is allowed but the current spec doesn't say what it
>> means to specify
>> href= on data. Data-about mentions that href= on data
>> specifies the object
>> of the data. So clearly we need to say something to that
>> effect under data.
>
> Since no specific change has been suggested, I'm assuming this
> is just a comment in passing. Unless in the future some specific
> change is suggested, this is a no-op, and I'll assume any vote
> next week will not include anything on this.
I think I need to propose specific language for data:
4. Add new third paragraph:
Use the href attribute to point to the effective value of the <data> element
(the object of the <data>). When the direct target of the href attribute is
a topicref element, processors may choose to treat either the topicref or
its ultimate target as the object of the <data> element.
[WEK: I think I've understood the intent of href= on <data> correctly in
this proposal. If not, then we need to agree as a TC what the intent is.]
>> 5. data-about
>>
>> I think the text under href, proposed above, is sufficient
>> since it's not a
>> navigation relationship but an annotation relationship.
>
> Another no-op comment.
Yes. Item 5 is not a proposal.
>> 7. lq
>>
>> Same as data-about--let href text serve, since use of href= on lq is
>> effectively deprecated by the existence of longquoteref
>
> Another no-op comment.
Correct--also not a proposal.
> I'm assuming there is no significance to #10 being missing.
Correct, no significance.
> We're okay with the first #12.
>
> I'm assuming there is no significance to having two #12's.
Cut and paste error.
Cheers,
Eliot
----
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email: <mailto:>
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | http://blog.reallysi.com
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
