Terry Allen writes:
> you'd have
>
> <DL TYPE=DC HREF="http://www.oclc.org:5046/ ... >
>
> or did you have a reason for preferring TYPE as an element?
There are a couple good reasons for not doing this. It is an
extension of HTML either way, but an element is more general than an
attribute. It applies not just to the DL element but to every other
data value that may appear, and this is important to allow users to
specify the "scheme" of a value. (This is comparable to the CENTER
element vs attribute - I believe the CENTER element is more general.)
Another reason is that the type itself may have attributes, or
content, depending on how we define it. A type may be parameterized,
or constructed anonymously. I am being rather vague here, and some
may think this is more generality than we need, but I like to plan
ahead.
BTW, the top level of the data need not be a DL structure - it could
be just an unordered list if that is appropriate. The Warwick
Framework packaging could be represented in this same HTML notation
using an unordered list of packages at the top level, each package
being a data structure, of which the Dublin Core DL structure is one
possibility. E.g.
<TYPE
HREF="http://cs-tr.cs.cornell.edu/Dienst/Repository/2.0/Body/ncstrl.cornell%2fTR96-1593/html">
<UL>
<LI> <TYPE HREF="http://www.oclc.org:5046/ ...>
<DL> ...
</DL>
<LI> <TYPE HREF="...">
...
</UL>
dan
|