Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The problem may be that linking is not a general purpose functionality. That is, linking, the term, is defined to mean too many slightly overlapping but otherwise distinct categories of functionality. Again: should the declaration to traverse be the same as the declaration of a relationship? In the middle of that is the declaration of location, but it isn't essential except to traversal. Hytime separated the notion of linking (here, declaring a relationship) from location (here, declaring an address). URIs weld those together. If one steps back and looks at both approaches, what falls out of each? I think it important to understand that without all of the other standard definitions (eg, http headers), the URI approach falls apart. That is, it takes more than a URI to traverse a network. Standards based simply on momentum can be the same as clearing land by rolling parked automobiles at the trees. It works but it creates its own mess. len From: Micah Dubinko [mailto:MDubinko@c...] Hi Len, >Do you have a comfort >level for having done that or do you think that >simplification (eg, just two common attributes) >will support growth? For general-purpose XML linking, I don't think anyone has a comfort level for what works and what doesn't, otherwise, this discussion wouldn't be necessary. :-) The goal of picking only two attributes is to get the thing off the ground. Adding all the whiz-bang features in SkunkLink 2.0 or some application-specific language would certainly take several more attributes (and not necessarily in the xml:namespace, as mentioned in the Q & A section) Growth of standards is achieved through momentum. The situation where everybody is sick to death of even talking about a subject is a terrible way to make progress. SkunkLink aims to change that.
|
