Re: [topicmaps-comment] mergeMap Pointing to MoreThanOnetopicMapElement

["W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@isogen.com>]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

> I would be unhappy with any change at all, though. I think we should
> leave XTM 1.0 unchanged for as long as we possibly can, and then sit
> down and make a bunch of changes at the same time, producing XTM 1.1
> or 2.0. An XTM 1.01 I don't think justifies the cost, political or
> technical.

That seems like a reasonable concern. I'm not arguing for any particular
time frame, just pointing out that the change itself is a small one.
 
> | At the moment, XTM is at best underspecified with respect to the
> | interpretation of XPointers and the limitations on them, with the
> | side effect that, for example, different otherwise conforming
> | implementations may have different, equally justifiable, behaviors
> | for interpretation of bare ID references when there is no governing
> | schema or DTD.
> 
> That's perfectly true, and the new syntax specification can fix this,
> without changing the syntax. At the moment, that is what I would
> prefer to do.

I would agree--all the ambiguities or underspecifications I've
identified can be easily fixed through additional prose.

Cheers,

E.
-- 
W. Eliot Kimber, eliot@isogen.com
Consultant, ISOGEN International

1016 La Posada Dr., Suite 240
Austin, TX  78752 Phone: 512.656.4139