Re: [docbook-tc] related links in assembly

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

"Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net> writes:
> Norm said:
>> That's not as satisfying to me. How about instead we allow relationship
>> to contain (instance|relatedlink)+ ?
>
> OK, I understand that instance points to a resource in the current
> assembly, but I don't understand this version of relatedlink.  Is is
> the same as an inline relatedlink?  If so, then it is pointing to an
> id in the resolved content, rather than a resource id.

Uhm. I must have missed that distinction. So we've got relatedlink
elements that are inline and we've got relationship elements in the
assembly file and we're saying that they can't be resolved at the same
time because one set points to things in the assembly and another
points at things in the assembled document (if they things identified
exist in the assembled document)?

That doesn't give me a warm feeling.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | I'm NOT in denial!
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | 
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |

PGP signature