RE: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
There were a lot of serious complaints about XLink because it requires attribute prefixes. I can't imagine the HTML folks favorably regarding the URI-as-content idea. But I see your point. You could just as well have said: <para>Check <link _="http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER" /> before you fly to Los Angeles.</para> It still provides essentially one piece of information: the target URI. I also must disagree with your point. I don't think acceptance of any particular linking technology has been greatly impeded by dispute over what information should be captured by the link. Most of the disputes I see are about the surface minutia: Elements vs Attributes; Namespaces; mandated GIs vs Choose-your-own-GIs. I submit that this is the really hard part: coming up with an easy to use and widely attractive _syntax_ for linking. -Wayne Steele >From: Bob DuCharme <bobdc@s...> >To: xml-dev@l... >Subject: RE: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal >Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 23:49:58 -0500 > >My two cents on SkunkLink and the potential future directions of linking in >XML, which recapitulates something I said in the Linking Town Hall in >Baltimore: > >An important recurring theme in this thread has been the need for >modularization in linking markup, and I hope that this idea doesn't fade >away. > >At its core, a link only needs a single piece of information: the locator >for a remote resource. If that's all there is, the resource holding it is >the implied other end of the relationship being expressed, and you have a >link: > ><para>Check <link>http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER</link> before you fly to Los >Angeles.</para> > >I'll admit, before Len points it out, that for better or worse this >particular URI itself carries some additional semantic information; you >don't have to follow it to get an idea of where it goes. Still, of all the >people saying "I've stripped down linking to its essentials," I'm shooting >for the "most stripped-down" prize. > >Now, most will agree, if not insist, that a linking architecture needs more >than just locators. It needs a few more things. What things? I have my own >opinion, which I will keep to myself for now. Micah has published his idea >of what they are (three of xlink:show's five values: replace, embed, and >none. Just kidding.) Simon has alluded to a work in progress. What I'd >really like to see is that once everyone submits their ideas about the most >important metadata to carry with a link, we group this metadata into >functional categories and then raise the discourse to a level that >addresses those categories, particularly their dependency relationships. >That would be the beginnings of a real linking architecture, and something >that could be implemented as a modular spec that could more easily serve a >lot of needs without overwhelming anyone. (Wouldn't it have been great if >W3C Schema had done that?) > > >Bob DuCharme www.snee.com/bob <bob@ >snee.com> "The elements be kind to thee, and make thy >spirits all of comfort!" Anthony and Cleopatra, III ii >(NOTE: bobdc e-mail address used only for mailing lists) > _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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