[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Quick edit
The sentence "The rddl:resource element represents a simple xlink (using the attributes defined in the XLink namespace), and an additional attribute content-type which provides for an optional content type specifier." Is grammatically awkward; I think the parentheses need to become commas like so: "The rddl:resource element represents a simple xlink, using the attributes defined in the XLink namespace. It has an additional attribute content-type which provides for an optional content type specifier." (mind you, with every day that goes by, I'm becoming more in favor of nuking content-type, but let's see what other people say). Just before the "Attributes" section, we need an example of an rddl:resource; I'd just grab one of ours from below and paste it in, with the lable "The following is an example of an <code>rddl:resource</code> element, taken from this document. I'm wondering if we should say, in the arcrole= section, anything along the lines of "if the resource type is an XML language and its definition specifies a namespace, the <code>arcrole</code> value should be the same as the namespace name." Why the "#resource" on the end of the role= value. Not disagreeing, just not sure what it buys us. The new resources, including the ZIP, are cool. Once you get your java interface worked out (I've seen nothing to disagree with yet) that can go in there too. -Tim
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|