> There is no "for" attribute in RFC 4287. If this use case requires it,
> maybe a link relation isn't the best way to do it (instead an extension
> attribute?).
Can you show me what you mean by extension attribute? It might not be
common, but adding attributes to link elements seems legal according to
the RFC.
> The QName can be avoided by using the "Clark notation"
> ({namespace-uri}local-name).
Is there a common XSD datatype for this? I agree that if that's the
strongest argument I can come up with, then... I don't care much one way
or the other, whatever the group prefers.
> It seems that collides a bit with RFC 4287's definition of type:
I thought it was clearly in the spirit -- you can get whichever type of
schema you want. Can you be a bit more specific for me?
Thanks for the feedback!
/r$
--
Visiting Member, IBM Academy
STSM, DataPower Chief Programmer
WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances
http://www.ibm.com/software/integration/datapower/
