• From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:28:41 -0400

At 05:16 AM 9/22/2006, Michael Kay wrote:
>Actually, I don't think it belongs only in the styling languages. I think
>the big mistake in XLink is a failure to recognize that there are two
>separate things: a relationship between pieces of information, and a
>navigable hyperlink. We've achieved the separation of content from
>presentation in other areas, we just haven't achieved it for relationships.
>The presentation forms do need better navigation facilities, and core XML
>also needs (much) better facilities for modelling relationships.

         Okay, color me confused. What you're talking about sounds 
like the classic markup difference between what something is and what 
it does. That usually falls into the realm of style vs. content.

         XML can model just about anything, in my experience. How is 
it lacking? Are you talking about specific tags or attributes to 
model relationships? Wouldn't that be falling into the exact same 
problem XLink has?

         If a styling language were able to say "this is a link" and 
"that attribute is the link address" and other such goodness, what 
else would be needed in core XML?

--->Ben 

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

• References:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>