• From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
• To: bob@s...
• Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:09:17 -0400

/ "Bob DuCharme" <bob@s...> was heard to say:
| I think that this was part of XLink's problem: the SGML influence was on
| how to model links so that they could be converted to links in multiple
| media, and the W3C (HTML) influence was on how to specify link behavior in
| browsers  (with lots of accessibility caveats thrown in to make it clear
| that the spec was talking about ideal browsers of the future), and
| specification for modeling links with specification for implementing them,
| however generalized, made it a messy spec.

Indeed.

| equivalents, as appropriate, I'd rather see XLink add to the richness of
| the semantic relationships expressed within DocBook and other semantic
| markup schemas so that XSLT can convert that markup to hypertext links, or
| TOCs, or endnotes, or popups, or whatever is appropriate for the output
| medium in question.

One of my personal motivations for touching XLink again was to make it
practical to use XLink in DocBook in a post-DTD world. DocBook V5.0 uses
XLink more-or-less ubiquitously.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@n...> | It is good to have an end to journey
http://nwalsh.com/            | toward; but it is the journey that
                              | matters, in the end.--Ursula K. LeGuin

PGP signature

• References:
  • Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Alexander Johannesen" <alexander.johannesen@g...>
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Bob DuCharme" <bob@s...>