MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
docbook-tc message
[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
PGP signature
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]