On 1 Apr 2005, at 01:38, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 1/4/05 9:10 AM, "Henry Story" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The value "alternate" signifies that the containing element is an alternative
representation of the resource identified by the IRI in the value of the href
attribute.
You do realise you've reversed the directionality of the relationship here,
right?
Yes I thought it made the text easier to read. I did not realize anyone cared.
IMHO, best not to introduce this ambiguity (directionality) into the spec.
Proposal:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
The value "alternate" signifies that the resource identified by the IRI in
the value of the href is an alternative representation of the resource
described by the containing element.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
(yes, I know that "alternate" is a commutative bi-di relationship)
Good, but now you are reverting back to the previous relation type.
Keep in mind the question: what are we relating to what?
My answer is that we are relating a resource to a representation.
Your phrasing, as the one in the spec, is relating two resources, which I argued
is too strong.
I think I can get the direction back and preserving the weakening of the relationship
which is the core of the proposal:
Proposal --------
replace
[[
The value "alternate" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies an alternate version of the resource described by the containing element.
]]
with:
[[
The value "alternate" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a resource for which the containing element is an alternative representation.
]]
PS. grammarians might want to tell me of it is "of which" or "for which".
e.
