|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > robin.berjon@e... (Robin Berjon) writes: >>I've used generic XLinks to find out about dependencies between XML >>documents in a variety of arbitrary vocabularies, and I've found it >>useful. I'm not in love with XLink itself, but I'd rather have it than >>nothing. > > This feels like an argument from laziness, and I have a hard time > respecting it. I think analyzing documents should mean learning the > vocabularies they use and how they use them. All I need is knowledge that there are relationships between resources. Why should I have to teach my code about various different constructs in two dozen vocabularies? I don't see what's not to respect in laziness. > This is really basic linking; I don't think you appreciate what a rich > set of possibilities is involved here. I appreciate it, and am happy to leave it to another layer. >>>Bad sex is not pretty good, IMHO. >> >>Still beats XHTML 2 linking though :p > > I think we've had different life experiences. I'm sorry to hear a hint that sex can get that bad. -- Robin Berjon
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








