This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Linking in DocBook (specifically for EBNF, but more generally as well)
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Linking in DocBook (specifically for EBNF, but more generally as well)
- From: "Eve L. Maler" <Eve dot Maler at east dot sun dot com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:46:08 -0400
- Reply-To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
At 09:43 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Terry Allen wrote:
>So use of an xlink: attribute specifies the semantics of the link
>but not the syntax?
I'm not sure what you mean. It certainly specifies XLink-standardized
semantics, and it also imposes some constraints on the syntax. E.g.,
currently the only way to supply a URI to be used in an XLink-based way is
with xlink:href (where "xlink" can be any prefix, as long as it's bound to
the right namespace URI).
>Which is not to say you can't use another method, if you define it
>and don't use URLs. (Note that the URN WG did not agree that fragment
>identifiers made sense with URNs, so there is no provision for them.)
>Not that I'm suggesting it; the point is that the semantics of the
>fragment ID are bound to the media type of the target, so you can't
>make up your own syntax for fragment IDs (although queries are fair
>game ...).
Yep.
>"#foo" alone would be relative to the current document (whatever
>that will end up meaning).
Yes, but "" along would also be relative to the current document. :-) It's
independent of the presence of the fragment ID.
>I think I've got it now. But I'd like to switch over consistently
>throughout the DTD, and when tool support is ready.
Yep, I can see that.
Eve
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center elm @ east.sun.com