[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.

• To: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Bob Hutchison <hutch@x...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:26:34 -0500
• In-reply-to: <200111131646.QAA23886@p...>
• User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108

On 01/11/13 11:46 AM, "David Carlisle" <davidc@n...> wrote:
>> How does an application know, from XML syntax alone
>> that, the element should be replaced by what it is referring to?
> Xlink allows the link to be annotated in various ways like this.

I'm guessing you are talking about xlink:show='embed' here (I'd really
really like to be wrong here). If it is then this isn't sufficient, if I'm
reading the spec correctly.

This is what the Xlink pointer specification
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/) has to say about this:

"Just as for the HTML IMG element, embedding affects only the presentation
of the relevant resources; it does not dictate permanent transformation of
the starting resource. Put another way, when an embedded XLink is processed,
the result of styling the ending resource of the link is merged into the
result of styling the resource into which it is embedded. By contrast, when
a construct such as an XInclude element [XInclude] is resolved, the original
XML is actually transformed to include the referenced content.

    The behaviour of conforming XLink applications when embedding XML-based
([IETF RFC 2376] or [IETF I-D XMT]) ending resources is not defined in this
version of this specification.

    The presentation of embedded resources is application dependent."

I don't XInclude will work either since that seems to be to be copying
resources not 'sharing' them.

Cheers,
Bob

• References:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Help needed with validating XML with the Schema it's suppose to abide by
• Next by Date: Re: Caught napping!
• Previous by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread