From: Sean Russell <ser@...>
Date: 2002-02-26T01:04:08+09:00
Subject: Re: rdoc/xml questions

Dave Thomas wrote:

> So, I'd probably not have the parent class as a class's attribute,
> then, because I wouldn't be able to xlink it. I'd do something like:
> 
>    <class name="A" ID="198212">
>      <contained-in-class>
>        <xlink:simple href="1762712">B</xlink:simple>
>      </contained-in-class>
>      ...
>    </class>
> 
> Yes?

Hm. Well, I'm not an xlink guru, but I think that technically your href 
would have to be "#1762712" since it refers to an in-document target.

Also, I wouldn't prefer to have contained classes be referenced like this.  
I'd still prefer:

  <class name="A" id="1">
    <class name="B" id="2"/>
  </class>      
  <class name="C">
    <extends xlink:href="#1"/>
  </class>

would be a mapping of:

  class A
    class B
    end
  end
  class C < A
  end

In the simplest case, AFAIK, you can use xlink the same as you'd use any 
href; the spec is supposed to be backwards compatible.  I don't think I'd 
make it more complex than it needs to be.  XLink has a lot of neat 
features, but until you have a use for them...

I suppose I'm not very creative.  I'd just map the Ruby structure to XML and 
be done with it.

> As if anyone in their right minds would want a job that involved using
> XML :)

Heh, it's unavoidable.  All jobs evolve until they require the use of XML 
:-)

-- SER