• From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:25:47 -0400

At 09:57 AM 9/28/2006, Melvin Chin wrote:
>Why would it necessarily be in generic XML?  XPath isn't, though it 
>inherits the "X" prefix.

         Because there are dozens of different ways to declare a link 
in different XML applications. DocBook does it differently than 
XHTML, CML does it differently (and for different purposes) than DocBook, etc.

         As soon as we specify links via a rigid vocabulary that must 
exist in the markup, we lose interoperability between different XML 
applications.

>I'd think links can be interpreted as a separate class of "data 
>about relationships".
> From this angle, its use and arguments about its importance and 
> non-importance
>(which defines the "right" in your 80/20) would be different from 
>just considering
>links' contribution to styles.

         I agree...which leads me back to my previous question -- 
does XLink cover the necessary aspects of "data about relationships" 
as it stands?

--->Ben

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: (In)Validate My Assumptions on Linking.
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • Re: (In)Validate My Assumptions on Linking.
    • From: Melvin Chin <mc@S...>

• References:
  • (In)Validate My Assumptions on Linking.
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • Re: (In)Validate My Assumptions on Linking.
    • From: Melvin Chin <mc@S...>