| Hi Bob
That's kind of where we went in the end. The problem we are having is that, having told the typesetters to use bibliomixed to represent bibliographic entries, they then go and try to do something intelligent :)
We actually told them to use <address><uri>.</uri></address> in the end as that makes more sense in the particular context.
Thanks for clearing that up - it mostly makes sense if you think of it like that. It does make it fairly non-obvious to mark up 'cooked' bibliographic entries that contain references to web sites but I can't see a better answer
nic On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:26, Bob Stayton wrote: Hi Nic, The extendedlink element defines an XLink, which in its general form is just a link between two resources, but that link is not necessarily a cross reference. The Definitive Guide says the processing expectation for extendedlink is "Suppressed", and the stylesheets don't even mention it. So I don't think you should view extendedlink as an inline element, but as metadata whose behavior is defined by the application. In that sense, it is appropriate for the "info" class of elements, while most inlines are not. But they could do <phrase><link>, as that is allowed in bibliomixed. ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 9:07 AM Subject: Re: bibliomixed and extendedlink
As Bob Stayton has just been kind enough to point out I've managed to make no sense here.Please read this as:
I've just been looking at some XML coming in from a typesetter and noticed some misuse of <extendedlink> elements. Looking at what they were trying to do led me to suspect they should have been using a simple <link> element. Of course, these aren't allowed within bibliomixed elements.
So, is there a particular reason why <extendedlink> is allowed within <bibliomixed> when <link> isn't?
yours in a vaguely embarrassed manner
nic On 3 Jun 2011, at 09:42, Nic Gibson wrote: I've just been looking at some XML coming in from a typesetter and noticed some misuse of <extendedlink> elements. Looking at what they were trying to do led me to suspect they should have been using a simple <link> element. Of course, these aren't allowed within bibliomisc elements.
So, is there a particular reason why <extendedlink> is allowed within <bibliomisc> when <link> isn't?
cheers
--
|