Space-Time Coordinate Metadata RFCThis document will act as RFC centre for the Space-Time Metadata V1.21 Proposed Recommendation. In order to add a comment to the document, please edit this page and add your comment to the list below in the format used for the example (include your WikiName so authors can contact you for further information). When the author(s) of the document have considered the comment, they will provide a response after the comment. Discussion about any of the comments or responses should be conducted on the data model mailing list, dm@ivoa.net.Comments
| ||||||||
Changed: | ||||||||
< < |
| |||||||
> > |
| |||||||
- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005 | ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
<?xml version="1.0"?> <stc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> <xi:include href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"/> </stc>you would write <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE stc [ <!ENTITY icrs-tt-topo SYSTEM "http://www.ivoa.net/xml/STC/ICRS-TT-TOPO.xml"> ]> <stc> &icrs-tt-topo; </stc>What the application software sees as the document's content is the same in both cases. There is some discussion of the relationship between XInclude and external entities in the XInclude standard, including some points which you might see as advantages of XInclude over entities. Possibly XInclude is the better way of doing this, but I think the matter deserves some explicit thought. As far as the STC [proposed] recommendation goes, it may be best to sidestep this question by just avoiding mention of XInclude in the document and talking about an unspecified inclusion mechanism. It's then up to STC document authors how they do it. The content of the library XML snippets can be the same in either case. -- MarkTaylor - 26 May 2005 | |||||||
Responses
<--
|