Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> From: Toby Considine [mailto:tobyconsidine@g...] On > Subject: RE: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type > > And then there is the issue of declaring special purpose XML > lexicons. Please clarify. I think this is an important point, but I'm not sure we understand the same thing by it. > Just as I need a mime type for traditional > references, and one needs an application type for, say, the > "mailto" type link, This is a URI scheme I think. What is it about xml:href which would not accommodate such a URI? > there should, of ging down this path, be > a place to create/register additional application-namespace > types on the references. Nothing about xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type imply that the full expressive power of xml is unavailable to the document designer, I think. In fact, if these attributes don't fit the need, don't use them. > > In my recent work, I have wrestled with classes of > calendar/schedule feeds, and how links to them should be > represented. > If these are guides to service end points, there > should be some way to distinguish and select between a list > of them. Going back to the expressive power of XML, use that if you need to. > The idea of a "mini-wsdl" for an array of xlinks w/I > a larger xml document, though, threatens to be like a > monkfish, i.e. a relatively small creature able to swallow a > large goose. The monkfish is hideous. > After swallowing it has to lie on the bottom for a week or > month to digest. Interesting analogy! Cheers, Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
