• From: Ari Krupnik <ari@c...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:07:47 -0700

Ben Trafford <ben@p...> writes:

>         In an ideal world, a lot of XLink would've gone into the
> styling languages. But we weren't in an ideal world. That doesn't
> render the work invalid; the ideas behind XLink are sound, they're
> just in the wrong place, i.e. the document.

Isn't that what killed the idea of XML as something you can directly
display in a browser? That XML+CSS gave you everything HTML gave you
except, you know, links? You have to transform your document to add in
the links, and if I have to do that, I might as well transform it into
HTML.

FO is different because FO dictates the entire vocabulary you use for
styling. You need to transform your source document anyway, so
generating this or other kind of links isn't a big deal.

Ari.

-- 
Elections only count as free and trials as fair if you can lose money
betting on the outcome.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Alexander Johannesen" <alexander.johannesen@g...>
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>