|Subject:||RE: [ciq] CIQ Specifications and xLink|
|From:||David RR Webber (XML) (dav...@drrw.info)|
|Date:||Aug 17, 2006 2:18:42 pm|
Fortunately this is also a hot topic for my current project too - so I can justify time spent on figuring out these methods - and then apply them to the CIQ instance.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ciq] CIQ Specifications and xLink From: "Ram Kumar" <kuma...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, August 17, 2006 5:11 pm To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <dav...@drrw.info> Cc: ci...@lists.oasis-open.org, "coli...@ssc.govt.nz" <coli...@ssc.govt.nz>
Any assistance on this will be great as I am not an expert in this area and Max is too busy on other things and he cannot contribute.
On 8/18/06, David RR Webber (XML) <dav...@drrw.info> wrote: > > Ram, > > Ok - I'm replying to your posts backwards here! > > OK - but you will have to bug me for this next week as right now I'm working > on CPPA V3 and xinclude, then I've just taken on EML V5 schema edits - and > so this will be third in the queue. > > My gut sense is though - we need to avoid things directly in the schema > itself - keep that simple - and provide supplemental XML to provide extended > linking alongside the base content. > > I'll ponder on some approach details and provide some samples next week. > > Thanks, DW > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [ciq] CIQ Specifications and xLink > From: "Ram Kumar" <kuma...@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, August 17, 2006 1:30 am > To: "coli...@ssc.govt.nz" <coli...@ssc.govt.nz> > Cc: ci...@lists.oasis-open.org > > Colin, > > I am not an expert on this. As you suggest, if David can draft something > along the lines it was discussed, it will be a great start. What Max is > saying > is that we will keep xlink optional and when xbrl comes on board, it > can be used. > Others who do not want, need not use it and instead use the > alternative approach. > > David, > > Is it possible to draft something? > > Regards, > > Ram > > On 17 Aug 2006 04:01:19 -0000, coli...@ssc.govt.nz > <coli...@ssc.govt.nz> wrote: > > <Comments from Max: > > <There is really no alternative>. > > > > Really? wow.. > > > > <OK, lets <invent our own <linking/referencing standard, but it's not > <gonna make life any easier. > > > > No, we don't want to invent one, we want to re-use an existing one that > has good industry support, so we have an answer to emails like Michael > Bain's email to Ram "...Although XLink is ideal for XML references in theory > we can't find a way to put it into practice (with processors, parsers etc)". > > > > > > <Personally, I don't see any problem with <xLink. All we really need to > > <do is to make xLink optional and remove <the xLink schema. > > > > OK, if Max can't see a problem and Michael can, it would be good if they > can engage to clear it up and we can take that knowledge forward. > > > > Max has taken a lot of time and effort to produce the xLink guidance doc > so it would be crazy to waste it. Once it has the xBRL-proposed URI change > in it, we are sweet, yes? At the very least xBRL will use it! > > > > Then the only question remaining is, do we offer guidance on any other > form of linking/referecing or not, and if so, what is it, and who can draft > it? > > > > Cheers > > Colin