• From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
• To: "'Ben Trafford'" <ben@p...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:06:50 -0500

That unless one is careful to define and circumscribe 'linking' one invents
a programming language.  Call that an experiential opinion.  I think of
links as a serialization (for lack of a better term) of the parameters of a
function consumed by a control.  That is why it is easy to go a few layers
too far in standards for hyperlinking, eg, ISO 10744 HyTime.  It's an honest
mistake.

OTW, this is a topic that is rich with literature if one looks, and over the
course of the progression of SGML to XML, most of the points of view have
been discussed on this and the old comp.text.sgml lists. 

After years of work, the compromise was Topic Maps and even that has
orthodox and reformist camps.  I found it fascinating that a US Intelligence
report on Atom Vs RSS referenced by Tim Bray from Ongoing included XLinks.
I conclude that they thrive on Intellink so someone in that closed world
thought keeping them on life support was a forward looking act.

Questions are useful.  Answers pay better. ;-)

len


From: Ben Trafford [mailto:ben@p...] 

         What are your thoughts on the topic?

• References:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>