Re: [docbook] Are "role" and "type" duplicated in the 5.0 XML schema?

["Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net>]

Hi Wolfgang,
It is indeed intentional that xlink:role and role (and xlink:type and type) attributes 
are available simultaneously, as they are in different namespaces and serve different 
purposes.  The xlink attributes are described in the XLink spec, and are used to 
modify XLink behavior. The DocBook attributes are described in DocBook: The Definitive 
Guide, and are available to modify the processing of almost any DocBook element.   Can 
you clarify what part of the spec describes this situation as unintentional?

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
bobs@sagehill.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wolfgang Laun" <wolfgang.laun@gmail.com>
To: <docbook@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:22 AM
Subject: [docbook] Are "role" and "type" duplicated in the 5.0 XML schema?


> docbook.xsd contains:
>
> <xs:attributeGroup name="db.common.linking.attributes">...
>    <xs:attribute ref="xlink:type"/>
>    <xs:attribute ref="xlink:role"/>
>
> and several docbook element definitions contain
>
> <xs:element name="...">
>   <xs:complexType mixed="true">
>      ...
>      <xs:attribute name="role"/>              <!-- or name="type" -->
>      <xs:attributeGroup ref="docbook:db.common.linking.attributes"/>
>  </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element>
>
> which, although unusual, is technically correct since one attribute is
> in namespace  "http://docbook.org/ns/docbook"; and the other one in
> "http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";.
>
> But it is apparent from the docbook spec that this is unintentional
> and therefore I think that the redundant <xs:attribute> elements
> should be omitted. Is this correct?
>
> -W
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>
>