RE: [ciq] CIQ Specifications and xLink

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Ram,

 

Ok - I'm replying to your posts backwards here!

 

OK - but you will have to bug me for this next week as right now I'm working on CPPA V3 and xinclude, then I've just taken on EML V5 schema edits - and so this will be third in the queue.

 

My gut sense is though - we need to avoid things directly in the schema itself - keep that simple - and provide supplemental XML to provide extended linking alongside the base content.

 

I'll ponder on some approach details and provide some samples next week.

 

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ciq] CIQ Specifications and xLink
From: "Ram Kumar" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, August 17, 2006 1:30 am
To: "colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz" <colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz>
Cc: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org

Colin,

I am not an expert on this. As you suggest, if David can draft something
along the lines it was discussed, it will be a great start. What Max is saying
is that we will keep xlink optional and when xbrl comes on board, it
can be used.
Others who do not want, need not use it and instead use the
alternative approach.

David,

Is it possible to draft something?

Regards,

Ram

On 17 Aug 2006 04:01:19 -0000, colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz
<colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz> wrote:
> <Comments from Max:
> <There is really no alternative>.
>
> Really? wow..
>
> <OK, lets <invent our own <linking/referencing standard, but it's not <gonna make life any easier.
>
> No, we don't want to invent one, we want to re-use an existing one that has good industry support, so we have an answer to emails like Michael Bain's email to Ram "...Although XLink is ideal for XML references in theory we can't find a way to put it into practice (with processors, parsers etc)".
>
>
> <Personally, I don't see any problem with <xLink. All we really need to
> <do is to make xLink optional and remove <the xLink schema.
>
> OK, if Max can't see a problem and Michael can, it would be good if they can engage to clear it up and we can take that knowledge forward.
>
> Max has taken a lot of time and effort to produce the xLink guidance doc so it would be crazy to waste it. Once it has the xBRL-proposed URI change in it, we are sweet, yes? At the very least xBRL will use it!
>
> Then the only question remaining is, do we offer guidance on any other form of linking/referecing or not, and if so, what is it, and who can draft it?
>
> Cheers
> Colin