Re: [ciq] CIQ Specifications and xLink

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

Thanks David. If you can work out a simple way for CIQ to resolve
this issue, it will be great. We can provide an option for xlink so
that XBRL can interoperate. Once XBRL defines XLINK schema, we
will use it.

Regards,

Ram

On 8/18/06, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:
>
> Ram,
>
> Fortunately this is also a hot topic for my current project too - so I can
> justify time spent on figuring out these methods - and then apply them to
> the CIQ instance.
>
> Thanks, DW
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ciq] CIQ Specifications and xLink
> From: "Ram Kumar" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, August 17, 2006 5:11 pm
> To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
> Cc: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org,  "colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz"
> <colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz>
>
> 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
>