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

Re: RDDL(2): new version up

• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• From: Henrik Martensson <henrik.martensson@b...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:37:21 +0100
• Cc: XML Developer List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1074533578.24873.647.camel@delleric>
• References: <0494A708-49EF-11D8-B62D-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <1074458181.24853.364.camel@delleric> <8CDD5CB2-4A08-11D8-81B2-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <p06010206bc31a291caf6@[192.168.254.4]> <008a01c3deaa$18e89c50$6403a8c0@ARIMATHEA> <1074532164.24859.634.camel@delleric> <20040119172003.GD26339@m...> <1074533578.24873.647.camel@delleric>

On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 18:32, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
<snip>
> 
> I am surprised to see that "not using XLink" seems now to be considered
> as a benefit by itself.
> 
> A while ago, XLink was to be the technology that would save the web and
> now it has become evil because that has not be the case.
> 
> Why not just take it for what it is: a spec with a domain of application
> that can be useful in its domain (and I think that it's the case for
> RDDL) and useless in other domains (as for any specification)?

I have a bit of trouble understanding why XLink hasn't cought on. As W3C
recommendations go, it is one of the more useful. XLinks are no more
difficult to implement than the other linking solutions that litter W3C
recommendations, and XLinks have the benefit of offering standardized
and link processing and the promise of reusable link processing
software.

/Henrik Mårtensson

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: "Jeff Rafter" <lists@j...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: fetching the text value of an element insidean element
• Next by Date: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Previous by thread: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Next by thread: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread