Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 12:25 PM 2006-09-28 -0400, Ben Trafford wrote: >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 see where you're coming. I was looking at your suggestion of requiring XML representation from the point of view of practicality. With my comment to subsequent point in mind, a link is needed if it is needed by data processing or representational demands due to inherent need of the problem. But if a link is need only if in a specified format, eg. XML format, then its applicable usage would be much more specialised. I was suggesting XPath for comparison. Think of XPath not as the familiar form we've gotten used to, but as a XML format. It'll be a nice and "elegant symmetry" since it is in XML form. But given one's familiarity and comfort level of today's XPath usages, it'd be pretty tough to imagine how XPath can be useful in XML format. As a "data of relationships", links would be data, so I'd not rule out the XML form which you're suggesting as being a plausible and perhaps most-of-the-time-suitable format. I'm only saying it doesn't have to be the only way, which was what your initial assumption purports to imply. >>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? We need the abstract notion of link in many places. But the actual presentation of the link may be a function of where it is being used. For many practical reasons that many on the list would be more familiar with than I, it may necessitate having different link representations in different areas, perhaps some for efficiency, some for convenience and familiar formats to most, and others for specialised applications. Ok, if you're talking specifically about XLink, I'll ask if another worthy candidate of equal generality in application areas and flexibility is available as an alternative for this "data about relationships" representation. If so, we can compare merits and pick the better or best one and refine it. If not, then XLink would be the only default best candidate and it would be better to channel energy to make it "cover the necessary aspects" that you're concerned with. cheers. >--->Ben > > >_______________________________________________________________________ > >XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS >to support XML implementation and development. To minimize >spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. > >[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ >Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l... >subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l... >List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ >List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
