• To: "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <clbullar@i...>, "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
• From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@c...>
• Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 23:33:15 -0800

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.

Thanks,

.micah

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
    • From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>

• Prev by Date: RE: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
• Next by Date: XSL INCLUDE PROBLEM
• Previous by thread: Re: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
• Next by thread: Re: SkunkLink: a skunkworks XML linking proposal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread