• From: James Fuller <jim.fuller@r...>
• To: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:51:08 +0200

Ben Trafford wrote:
> 
>         I have some comments on Michael Kay's response to my questions, 
> but I'd like to state a point of position first:
> 
>         In my mind, the problems he's addressing (semantic value of 
> links) are separate from the problems of rendering links. XLink's 
> biggest problem is that it conflates both. The problem with things like 
> RDF and Topic Maps is that they ignore display altogether. Thus, neither 
> really works for link rendering, and XLink really doesn't work for 
> semantically rich links.
> 
>         A lot of this comes down to the difficulties encountered in 
> specifying good link modelling over the last twenty years. It's very 
> difficult to come up with a language that's going to satisfy everybody.
> 
>         However, XLink had a solution to this, and I think it was a good 
> one: linkbases. A well-designed linkbase with a "front-end" of sorts in 
> the markup could be a good step to solving the problem. And languages 
> like RDF and Topic Maps are a strong foundation for a good linkbase, 
> methinks.

+1


>         I'm thinking we need to produce three things from these 
> discussions, if they're to have any value beyond navel-gazing:
> 
>         1) A method of rendering links using existing stylesheet 
> languages, starting with CSS. And this method needs to enable 
> referencing to a linkbase.
> 
>         2) A decision on a good linkbase framework. This framework 
> cannot preclude rendering of links.
> 
>         3) A bridge between items 1 and 2.
> 
>         Thoughts?

dont know if RDDL has some part to play here?

gl, Jim Fuller

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>

• References:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>