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

Re: linking, 80/20

• To: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Subject: Re: linking, 80/20
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 17:56:18 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <002f01c246fc$75d54810$6701a8c0@blackie> <3D602A9C.C1FE21A4@p...> <lgc0mughls6o4btk55c9p5ohpgdk5cmafa@4...>

Arjun Ray wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> The only "inline" markup is (possibly) the 'xdc' attribute in my example.
> With an out-of-line mechanism, yes, such markup wouldn't have been needed
> in the instance.

Okay, we agree.

> But there is another important factor here.  That multiple taxonomies are
> simultaneously in scope is ultimately a feature of the instance document.

It can be. It can also be a feature of the document type. i.e. sometimes
you are doing "CONCUR" and sometimes you are doing "subtyping". I
consider it a flaw that architectural forms conflate the two concepts.

> It is gratuitously restrictive to require that this be defined only in
> terms of "document types".  

I didn't require that *in general*. I said that *for HTML* it is not
appropriate to require extra attributes in the document. They are as
intrusive as the xlink: prefixes I am trying to get rid of.

> ... One could *design* a document type and within
> its definition explicitly specify the external provenance of its various
> parts, but that doesn't cater to one-offs or to situations of limited
> applicability - such as when you don't want to associate an element type
> with another, but rather to associate only specific instantiations of the
> element type with some other "template".  

I am not a big fan of this "feature" but even if I did think it was
wonderful for some situations and document types, it is not appropriate
for the problem of removing extraneous markup from XHTML.

>...
> But you won't get away from an irreducible minimum, which is to declare,
> somehow, within the instance - that is, er, inline - that such ancillary
> information is in play.

I disagree. As long as there is any other information in the document
establishing a globally unique name (e.g. a DTD declaration or namespace
declaration) I can use that as a key to invoke my XLink recognition
process. If I cannot depend on my processor to "know" how to find an
XLink recognition document based on my namespace, then I can have a
magic attribute as W3C XML Schema does.
-- 
"When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim 
suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith 
-- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk."
Congressman James Traficant.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>

• References:
  • RE: linking, 80/20
    • From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@j...>
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Acronym spaces, namespaces, and authority (was Re: WXS acronym?)
• Next by Date: Re: XLink olden days
• Previous by thread: Re: linking, 80/20
• Next by thread: Re: linking, 80/20
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread