• To: michael.h.kay@n...
• Subject: Re: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 16:08:25 -0800
• Cc: 'Micah Dubinko' <MDubinko@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <000301c2b5df$408815f0$6601a8c0@pcukmka>
• References: <000301c2b5df$408815f0$6601a8c0@pcukmka>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Michael Kay wrote:

> You are making exactly the same mistake. The reason that XLink has not
> taken off is that it neglects the basic raison d'etre of XML, which is
> to separate information representation from user interface concerns. XML
> needs a way to model relationships (it currently has several, none of
> which is very good). "Links that should be presented to the user" belong
> in a user interface vocabulary, not in XML itself.

This is a plausible argument, but I don't buy it - I think that 
hyperlinks are one of the defining characteristics of the Web and at the 
end of the day are content not presentation.  The #1 reason XLink has 
not taken off is that Microsoft has not seen fit to implement it in IE. 
  -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: S-expressions vs. XML
• Next by Date: Re: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
• Previous by thread: RE: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
• Next by thread: Re: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread