• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:27:18 -0700

> At 06:46 PM 7/19/00 -0700, Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> >Of course, linking in general is fragile if major source changes
> are made.
>
>          Maybe I'm a purist (nah -- I'm definitely a purist), but this is
> an unacceptable situation to me. Links are put in documents for a reason,
> and authors deserve some sort of protection from stylesheet
> transformations that deform their content.

In general, I'd be surprised if links *couldn't* be carried forward, simply
because most of the tranformations I've seen over the years (for dynamic
delivery) tend to be trivial, and tend to *add* markup. The situation
probably isn't quite as bad as you might imagine.

• References:
  • RE: XLink transformations
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Canonical XML, signatures, and element ordering
• Next by Date: Re: Default Namespaces - why don't they apply to attributes?
• Previous by thread: RE: XLink transformations
• Next by thread: Re: XLink transformations
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread