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

Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 04:43:15 +0000
• In-reply-to: <20020917155500.Q27778@r...>
• References: <016401c25e0e$f48316a0$fe193044@tbp1> <E17qPSL-0002It-00@m...> <68872854568.20020917004759@j...> <016401c25e0e$f48316a0$fe193044@tbp1> <4.2.2.20020917131033.00ac4748@m...> <p04330102b9ad1fec4a00@[192.168.254.4]> <20020917144140.O27778@r...> <srteouki5q73n6titc4inmg9d38o5ljmlt@4...> <20020917155500.Q27778@r...>

Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...> wrote:
| On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 07:03:29PM +0000, Arjun Ray wrote:
| > Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...> wrote:

|>  XLink also established policy on deployment: colonified names with 
|> associated namespace "declarations".  
| 
| We didn't. It's an XML vocabulary designed at W3C, expect it to be
| anchored in a namespace ! 

The problem wasn't this anchoring stuff, it was how.  We all know about
the "solutions as requirements" game.

|> XLink is neither usable nor reusable without a name mapping mechanism: 
|> its design constraints on *other* languages are draconian.

| It's in general sufficient to simply tag with attributes from a foreign
| namespace to add Linking semantic. 

Again, the issue of how. 
 
| No it is not draconian from an XML point of view ... I disagree !

The design constraints are draconian because colonification is draconian -
when it postulates, in defiance of evidence, that a name mapping mechanism
is not necessary.  It is obliged to theorise that taxonomies will never
have to *share* data values (as in html:href "versus" xlink:href).  It
tries to make virtue out of necessity - if not dogma out of principle -
when multiple linking semantics in the same element become impossible *due
to syntax*. 

If *syntactic* impossibility isn't a design constraint, I don't know what
is. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Next by Date: Re: Don't Let Architecture Astronauts Scare You
• Previous by thread: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Next by thread: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread