[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: linking, 80/20

• To: "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@p...>, "'John Cowan'" <jcowan@r...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: linking, 80/20
• From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
• Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:13:00 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3D5EB23A.F74BA6F7@p...>

Hi Paul,

Paul said:
I disagree. There is a cognitive load imposed by requiring authors to
remember what namespaces various features of their markup language come
from. RDF for metadata. DC for a particular ontology. XLink for linking.
XForms for forms. HTML's original virtue was how easy it was to learn
and remember. 


Didier replies:
So Paul, to the list of arguments that invalidate the xlink
theory/specifications you add: too many namespaces lead to an increase
in cognitive load. Could this be fixed by a DTD declaration or where and
how do you see a major showstopper preventing the namespace
identification to sit outside of XHTML documents per se (i.e. in DTDs).
I am just asking to get this issue clarified and noted in our xlink
issue list. To make things clear for everyone, if the namespace
declaration is included in any way in the document type definition
document and that no namespace reference is left in XHTML document, then
the workload is not an issue. Otherwise it is one and we should treat
cognitive load as an invalidation factor that will need to be tested
empirically (or statically). 

Cheers
Didier PH Martin

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: Henrik Motakef <henrik.motakef@w...>

• References:
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Tearing the Hyperlink Problem Apart (was Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?)
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Previous by thread: Re: linking, 80/20
• Next by thread: Re: linking, 80/20
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread