[sc34wg3] Comments on XTM 2.0

Conal Tuohy sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:56:41 +1300

Steve Pepper wrote:

> Remember, we are defining the interchange syntax. In some
> ways this is the most visible part of the whole standard, so
> make sure you are happy with the result!
> The comments so far are:
>   1. Version number should be 2.0
>   2. GI for names should be <name>, not <topicName>
>   3. Error in DTD (content model of topicName)
>   4. Added scope on <mergeMap> should be reinstated

I agree with these 4.

Another comment was that XLink should not be dropped. I want to second

Although it's perhaps true (as someone mentioned) that it's unlikely
anyone would want to use a "generic xlink processor" as a platform for
building a topic map engine, there is more value to using a standard
linking mechanism than just that. For instance, XML editors and browsers
are more likely to be "XLink aware" than "XTM aware", and to allow XTM
authors to navigate those links as a way of exploring and checking their
XTM instances. I know that Firefox, for instance, is XLink aware, though
at present there are bugs which obscure this functionality unless your
XTM instances are styled (with CSS or XSLT), and you have a local copy
of the XTM DTD.

Maybe XLink hasn't taken the world by storm, but it seems to me that's
not itself a reason to shun it. I have used XLink in XBRL and SVG, and I
notice that it has made it into DocBook 5 at last ... so we are hardly
the only ones. Why not stick with it? It can only get better IMHO.

More generally, can I ask if anyone has written XSLT to transform XTM 1
to the proposed XTM 2 (and back)?=20

Conal Tuohy
Senior Programmer
New Zealand Electronic Text Centre