[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] annotation proposal
/ "Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net> was heard to say: | By using two different attachment mechanisms for the | two annotation elements, the distinction between them | is made even stronger. I think that is a good thing. | I don't think <alt> needs any mechanism for | doing remote annotations or reuse of annotations. | But <annotation> does. On the whole, I think that's a fine proposal. Some questions and comments, in no particular order. 1. I agree we should make the attributes CDATA. That allows, in principle at least, refersto="somefile.xml#someid" 2. I'm not real wild about the name 'refersto'. What about 'annotates'? 3. Having both directions explicit means you can get mismatches. What does this mean: <para xml:id='p1' annotations='a1 a2'>... <annotation xml:id='a1' refersto='p1'>... <annotation xml:id='a2' refersto='p2'>... Is it an error? Does it mean the relationship is 1-way for a2 and two-way for a1? Does it make sense? Is that what users will want? We could also propose that they were always two-way and the processor was required to build the union. 4. Is there any relationship between extended XLink and annotations? 5. Are annotations required to have an xml:id or a refersto? 6. Is this allowed? How is this processed? <para>Hello<annotation>...</annotation> world.</para> 7. More generally, where are annotations allowed? Thanks, Bob! Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Be who you are and say what you http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | feel, because those who mind don't Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | matter and those who matter don't | mind.--Dr. Seuss
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]