[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Xlink Isn't Dead

• From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:12:55 -0400

At 07:48 PM 9/24/2006, Len Bullard wrote (and was quoting Michael Kay):
>Michael Kay stated a list of requirements.  I've not seen them elaborated.

         I have to confess that I don't actually understand what he 
means by some of them. Examples and elaborations would be really helpful.

> >What's needed is a mechanism for declaring and maintaining non-hierarchic
> >relationships between objects (elements) that allows:

         What's an example of a non-hierarchic relationship as it 
applies to links?

> >* independence of document boundaries

         In what sense? Again, an example would be good.

> >* indirection between identifiers of objects and the addresses of the
> >documents containing them

         Examples and elaborations would be helpful.

> >* indirection between identifiers of objects and their XML representations

         Ditto.

> >* flexibility in the management of referential integrity

         Ditto.

> >* versioning

         On the wrong side of the 80/20, in my opinion.

--->Ben 

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

• References:
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>