Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I guess that means we'll eventually be seeing updates of a wide variety > of specs that see relatively little use. That's not all bad. In the > case of XLink, though, it really highlighted for me that even a spec > that utterly failed to build a community is still sort of somehow > marching along. ?? I don't know that XLink was ever intended to build a community in that sense: xlink is utility conventions. You don't talk of an XML Namespaces community either: both are something that people use or don't use to get some other job done. MathML, that is a community. RDF, HTML, SVG. You wouldn't have expected an XLink conference, for example. I don't know, for example, that it is even possible to have a complete XLink library (e.g. in Java), except perhaps a set of interfaces or abstract classes. Not specific enough semantics. But I do agree that XLink could have been bigger. We ended up with a linking system with no semantics and usable syntax in XLink and a linking system with strong semantics and unusable syntax in (initial) RDF. RDFa still is not officially defined over XML (neither officially nor workable in practice), so there I think there is still good potential for people to use XLink+GRDDL. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
