• From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:01:33 -0400

At 04:44 AM 9/22/2006, Michael Kay wrote:
>I've never understood the point myself. You can call your XML elements and
>attributes anything you like, why can't you do the same for your
>relationships?

         If there was anything even approaching the ability to model 
link relationships in XSL-FO or especially CSS, XLink would be 
pointless. However, since the groups responsible for those specs seem 
to think that unidirectional links are the beginning and end of the 
conversation, XLink fits a niche role.

         Hopefully, they'll get a clue, at some point, and use the 
ideas behind XLink as a basis for putting link behavior where it 
belongs -- in the styling languages. Then the rest of us will be able 
to model our links however we want.

         Of course, that'll probably happen around the time Microsoft 
actually implements, say, the entire HTML or CSS specs.

         ;^)

--->Ben 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• References:
  • Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>