• From: Melvin Chin <mc@S...>
• To: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:57:16 +0800

At 03:49 AM 2006-09-28 -0400, Ben Trafford wrote:
>         2) Links need to be declared in generic XML, so no forced syntax 
> like XLink 1.0. This is so that all the various dialects people have used 
> to describe linking can get along without breaking (backwards and 
> forwards compatibility).

Why would it necessarily be in generic XML?  XPath isn't, though it 
inherits the "X" prefix.


>         3) XLink is -conceptually- on the right side of the 80/20. Forget 
> the syntax, and focus on the actual ideas -- do they cover what needs to 
> be covered? Especially if it were possible to easily extend them in the future.

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.   Relationships (like the arcs of a graph) 
can exist without
the present instantiation of objects (the nodes of the same graph).  The 
instantiation
could be deferred, implied, virtual, theoretical, temporary, aliased, etc. 
But the
fact that if a graph's relationships are stable and need to be described, 
links will
come in handy here.

cheers.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: (In)Validate My Assumptions on Linking.
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>

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