[sc34wg3] CTM: Proposal for %mergemap directive

[Jirka Kosek]

Lars Heuer wrote:

> Advantages:
> - The parser can ignore the EOL delimiter after the mergemap directive
>   (this marker is currently necessary to distinguish the notation from
>   a subject identifier)
> - Syntax is much shorter:
>       %mergemap http://example.org/ http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/
>   vs.:
>       %mergemap http://example.org/ "xtm"
> - The user must not remember a lengthily IRI and potentially typos are
>   avoided
> 
> Disadvantages:
> - An IRI is "more unique" than a string
> - A possible version information may be encoded in an IRI more easily

You can get both advantages by introducing new keyword %notation for
defining notation shorthands. So instead of

%mergemap http://example.org/ http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/

you could use something like:

%notation xtm http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/
%mergemap http://example.org/ xtm

Of course it would make sense to predefine ctm and xtm notations, so you
don't have to repeat them in every CTM file.

					Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka at kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/attachments/20071121/c5095ece/attachment.pgp