Feedback from list on RFE 565716 (URL and URN markup)

[Michael Smith <smith@xml-doc.org>]

I received only a couple replies to the message[1] I sent to the docbook
list asking for feedback on RFE 565716 (URL and URN markup).

One reply[2] was from the original submittor, Elliotte Rusty Harold. He
wrote:

  I'd still prefer to have the class attribute, but it's not a big 
  deal. Otherwise, this looks good.

The other reply[3] was from Tobias Reif, who made three comments.

 1. He took exception to some wording in the Processing Expectations
    section of the proposal:

      Unlike the Ulink element, Uri is not rendered as an actual
      hyperlink to the content found at the location it references.
      Instead, it appears as literal text, perhaps distinguished
      typographically (for example, in monospace or italic type).

    But that part is of course non-normative and only meant as a
    suggestion for what might go into TDG.

 2. He suggested adding an attribute with the enumerated values
    "locator" and "resourceLocator".

      If there is something (eg some data or document) to be found on
      the location, then perhaps type="locator" or
      type="resourceLocator" would make sense.  Software can try to load
      the resource; if type != locator, it doesn't have to try, since
      there probably is nothing at the other end.

    I don't see a point in doing that, because we already have the Ulink
    element for dealing with rendering links to URIs. The whole point of
    this Uri element is just to render liternal URIs.

 3. Finally, he suggested we'd be better of with two elements, Uri and
    Url.

      Personally, I'd be happy to have elements uri and url (Can be the
      same string, but marked up as locator (url) if used to locate a
      resource, and marked up as identifier (uri) when used as such.),
      but that goes against the current Zeitgeist AFAICS :)

    But I don't think that addition of both Uri and Url elements would
    be useful. Going with Url and Urn might be, but the TC already
    discussed that and decided that Uri was all we really needed.

So, at this point, we haven't gotten any significant objections, and I
don't expect any will come later. And the original submittor is
satisfied with it.

It seems like the TC can go ahead and have the final vote on it (either
by e-mail or on the next telcon) and close it out.

  -- Mike

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook/200306/msg00051.html
[2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook/200306/msg00054.html
[3] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook/200306/msg00052.html

PGP signature