Re: DOCBOOK: Re: Linking in DocBook V5.0

[Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 01:38:36PM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> |   My point was that for the instance to link to its linkbase, it must
> | have an element holding xlink:type='extended', so please don't forbit
> | that possibility :-)
> 
> That's not my reading of the XLink spec. An element with
> xlink:type='extended' *is an extended link*, it doesn't point to
> one. What you want, I believe, is something like this:
> 
>   <link role="linkbase"
>         xlink:type="simple"
>         xlink:href="myLinkBase.xml"
>         xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase"
>         xlink:title="My Link Base"
>         xlink:show="none"
>         xlink:actuate="onLoad"/>
> 
> No?

  Hum, right:

  "The instruction takes the form of an arc specification (whether an
   explicit one in an extended link, or an implicit one in a simple link)"

I didn't remember we changed this so that simple links could be considered
as arc suitable for this. Excellent !

Should xlink:type="extended" be forbidden still ? I'm tempted to not 
block them on a general basis. If there is elements with a predefined linking
semantic, then fixing them at the DTD level makes sense. On the other hand
blocking the use of advanced linking facilities because you don't
know a priori how and why they should be used sounds too strong. If 
such construct actually appear that may be something to learn from rather
than forbid, no ? And the arcrole should take care of the possible different
semantic that may get applied to links in a given context.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@redhat.com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/