Re: [ciq] CIQ Specifications and xLink

["Ram Kumar" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>]

David,

Any assistance on this will be great as I am not an expert in this area
and Max is too busy on other things and he cannot contribute.

Thanks

Regards,

Ram

On 8/18/06, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:
>
> 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