[sc34wg3] XTM 2.0 topicRef - proposal for an erratum
Lars Marius Garshol
larsga at garshol.priv.no
Tue Oct 20 07:46:19 EDT 2009
* Lars Heuer
> The section mandates that the IRI reference contains always a fragment
> identifier. [...]
This is one of many things in XTM 2.0 which never received the
discussion they should have because of the way the standard was rushed
through. The whole thing was a very bad idea, but ... well ... that's
history now. :-/
> That means the following references are illegal:
> * <topicRef href="http://psi.example.org/puck-die-stubenfliege"/>
Perhaps it should be, given that this is a reference to a subject
> * <topicRef href="puck-die-stubenfliege"/>
This is a reference to a file with that name in the same directory,
and so very likely to be a mistake. In fact, one of the most common
errors in hand-written XTM files is leaving out the anchor first,
causing a stub topic to appear here.
> I don't see a good reason why every IRI reference must have a fragment
Basically that if you are going to point to a topic in another XTM (or
CTM) file you're going to have to use a fragment identifier to say
which topic you mean. The only way around it is to store a topic in a
file on its own. Or to auto-generate item identifiers without fragments.
> The fragment identifier is only needed if someone wants to refer to
> a topic within the same topic map: [...]
Nope. Say you have foo.xtm, containing the topic "bar". The reference
to it will be foo.xtm#bar.
> The limitation to IRI references with fragment identifiers carries an
> unnecessary burden, especially if someone wants to generate topic maps
Maybe. I made an issue for this so we can track the discussion:
Anyway, now that you've heard the rationale, what do you think?
More information about the sc34wg3