RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
Hi Simon, Simon said: "XLink is a W3C Recommendation and therefore you must abide by it" doesn't seem like a particularly reasonable thing to say to people whose comments on XLink appear to have been rejected out of hand with little explanation. Given my prior experiences with this WG, I'm prone to take all of its comments with a ton of salt, but a coherent explanation of the why behind the spec might help wash some of that salt away. Didier replies: Like you I am not always please with what's coming out of W3C but most of all I am not pleased at all having face a schizophrenic behavior and no consistency. If W3C came out with a link specs, good or bad, its better that other W3 specs use it for internal consistency or, if a major breakdown is discovered, that the xlink spec is updated. I won't defend each groups but I want to know, in a structured document, the reasons why Xlink is a showstopper for XHTML. It would help to understand why xlink is broken. In science, (again, sorry for our philosophy allergic fellows) it seems to be better to take the epistemological(1) approach recommended by Karl Popper(2). Thus, to try as much as possible to prove that a theory is wrong instead of trying to prove it is right ( a major exception to this are mathematics). following this approach, it is better to know what is the experiment or experience that leads to invalidate the xlink theory/specifications than to know why xlink is validate (simple economy of thoughts and time). Let's pretend, at first, that xlink is useful and OK and then let's see why its not useful and OK by use cases, experiments, experiences. The SVG WG used xlink, and, a in day to day practice, it doesn't look like a showstopper. So, SVG, up to date, didn't invalidate the xlink theory/specifications. Off course, we may not like the namespaces or the way namespaces are handled but it remains that from W3C, as an institution, we expect consistency and coherency. The actual problem is that a particular W3C WG says that there are some showstoppers with Xlink, a respected member of this WG, Ann assured us that we'll have a document stating the reasons why such breakdown is happening (and thus invalidating the xlink theory/specifications). With this document that I guess will be better structured than a puzzle to be assembled from scattered emails, we'll be able to make our mind and we will be in a better position to understand why xlink is invalidated in the case of XHTML. Off course if the only leitmotiv is political and Byzantines fights, there are little hopes that a sound and rational process is followed. However, I hope this is not the case and will place my trust in Ann's words; we'll get a document giving us the answers. (1) http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=epistemological (2) http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/ Cheers Didier PH Martin
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format