Hi Wolfgang,
It is indeed intentional that xlink:role and role (and xlink:type and type) attributes
are available simultaneously, as they are in different namespaces and serve different
purposes. The xlink attributes are described in the XLink spec, and are used to
modify XLink behavior. The DocBook attributes are described in DocBook: The Definitive
Guide, and are available to modify the processing of almost any DocBook element. Can
you clarify what part of the spec describes this situation as unintentional?
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wolfgang Laun" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:22 AM
Subject: [docbook] Are "role" and "type" duplicated in the 5.0 XML schema?
docbook.xsd contains:
<xs:attributeGroup name="db.common.linking.attributes">...
<xs:attribute ref="xlink:type"/>
<xs:attribute ref="xlink:role"/>
and several docbook element definitions contain
<xs:element name="...">
<xs:complexType mixed="true">
...
<xs:attribute name="role"/> <!-- or name="type" -->
<xs:attributeGroup ref="docbook:db.common.linking.attributes"/>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
which, although unusual, is technically correct since one attribute is
in namespace "http://docbook.org/ns/docbook"; and the other one in
"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";.
But it is apparent from the docbook spec that this is unintentional
and therefore I think that the redundant <xs:attribute> elements
should be omitted. Is this correct?
-W
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
