RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
clbullar@i... (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes: >Or admit that there is actually only ONE way to link on the WWW: > >someProtocolMorphToKickOffAFunction:// somethingOneHopesIsWhereItIsSupposedTo >BeWhenFunctionFires > > ^ ^ > | | > > The Computer Science Part The Social Behavior Part Sort of. I'm not thrilled with URIs as the one true identifier for the Web either, though I think we're in roughly the same place on that. I don't think identification and linking are the same, but I agree with your next sentence thoroughly. >Everything else is application semantics. It is >the application semantics that don't mesh although one >can make that happen by the same acts that influence >norms of social behavior just as the link design is >imposed top down. I'm not sure that using norms is going to be effective in this case. There seems to be a trend lately where "norm" is defined by "organization and vendor preference", not "quality of work". That's caused enormous pain on the schema side and created messes I expect we'll still be cleaning in twenty years (when we finally have to replace the schema-based systems no one wanted to touch). Fortunately, that hasn't worked for XLink. >There is no reason XLink won't work. It is a matter >of persuasion. So far, no persuasion has been effective. >As I said earlier, that is because there are easier ways >that only depend on different scales of local control. I think you have something here, though again I think you're talking about means of social control rather than technology. You're suggesting local persuasion; I'm suggesting local development. In the absence of effective persuasion for XLink I expect the latter will happen anyway.
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