RE: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
Hi Liam, Thanks for your reply. > > > As I understand it, mastery of the web was a goal of XML, > so I'm just > > dreaming a little. > > It was not a goal of XML. > > The primary goal of XML was getting existing SGML documents > and work-flows onto the Web. The work was originally called Web SGML. From "http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#sec-origin-goals" The design goals for XML are: 1. XML shall be straightforwardly usable over the Internet. OK, this is not "mastery of the web", but the Web is an important application of the internet. > Your comment did I think reach the XML Core Working Group; > the group meets two or three times a month for half an hour, > so don't expect an immediate response :-) Sorry, I should have posted here in the first place anyway. > However, I think > the first reaction was to point you towards XLink and XPointer. Yes, others have pointed that out. I'm thinking about RESTful use of XML. REST is the basis on which the Web's protocol is designed. "typed" links are a fundamental part of REST, I think. So, my question is, what is the simplest change that could be made to XML which would enable its "success" on the web? My suggestion is to insert linking lower down in the XML technology stack than what is done by XLink. Others also predicted that my suggestion would not be 'popular'. I'm OK with that, but I wanted to hear from the technology implementers of what would break if such a change was made. > > If "mastery of the Web" _had_ been a goal, XML would have > been very different, as Jeni Tennyson pointed out in her > keynote at XML Prague this year. Yes, I saw the video, but I forget this specific point. Did she say how it would have been different? > To answer a more explicit question (from a personal > perspective), the cost of introducing xml:href would be > risking breaking existing XML systems, I've tried putting these attributes on XML source and running XSLT against them, no obvious problems. I found no support for XLink in my XML IDE. > which are far more > likely to work with xlink:href. I know there are vocabulary standards which use xlink. Of course that means there are processors which use it too. I think that if you need the power of describing links semantically etc, you should use it. But not everyone needs this power. For that matter, one is not obliged to use XLink, you can "roll your own" linking scheme, which your own processors can leverage. > And there's no clear benefit. OK, I think there is. I think that having a simple standard that does not have to be declared by the user would allow linking of XML documents "on the web", with design aligned with that of the web, hence xml:type and possibly xml:hreflang. BTW, I think the JSON community is considering the same problem: http://www.mnot.net/blog/2011/11/25/linking_in_json > > The biggest problem I see with XLink is that it did not > address "link discovery through architectural forms" - the > process of saying, "in this XML vocabulary, the "cf" > attribute on any element with three vowels in the element > name is a link constructed by using the template > concat(@cf, "?", local-name(), "=", .) I have been wondering about how to use URI templates in XML: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6570.txt Is this a similar idea? Cheers, Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format