RE: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
Yes I'm aware of xlink. The reason I'm thinking about going lower in the layer stack is the re-invention thing. Not that XLink is not useful, but for example atom did not use it, and there are probably other examples. Maybe just the fact that the document has to define the namespace is enough to deter the use of the xlink:href. xml:lang etc don't suffer from this. Linking is not inherent only to presentation, necessarily. It is vital to changing application state, however. As I understand it, mastery of the web was a goal of XML, so I'm just dreaming a little. Cheers, Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Welch [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: April 13, 2012 08:50 > To: Rushforth, Peter > Cc: email@example.com > Subject: Re: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type > > > So that makes me wonder if > > XML would benefit from a _single_ simple link standard, > inherited by > >all XML vocabularies in the same manner as xml:base, xml:lang . > > Just checking as you didn't mention it - are you aware of xlink: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/ > > Usually when this question comes up, the answer is that > linking is done in a different layer to the xml (the > presentation layer). > > > -- > Andrew Welch > http://andrewjwelch.com >
[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