[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XLink a special case in the self-describing Web?
[John Cowan:] > *Names* generally have meaning. XML namespaces don't. I don't agree with you, John. XML Namespaces themselves have names, and the names involve or include internet domain names. Internet domain names usually have meaning, at least to their owners. Why else would they choose them in the first place, above all other possibilities, and then pay indefinitely to hang onto them? > (Actually, XLink locator elements should only appear inside extended > > XLinks, but I haven't found a formal machine-interpretable > > expression of that constraint that I could use to define and > > constrain architectures other than the XLink architecture, using the > > same software to validate instances for conformance with such > > context constraints. We could do at least that much with DTDs.) > > I think one could write an architectural DTD for XLink fairly easily, > modulo the question of user-defined prefixes. I think you're right, but I repeat that haven't seen a W3C-blessed formal, machine-interpretable expression of the constraint that locators should only be found inside extended xlinks. Yes, we could write an ISO standard DTD or meta-DTD that would do the trick, but the W3C's aversion to DTDs and (especially) the use of DTDs as inheritable architectures is a matter of record. XLink is going to be a W3C Recommendation, and nobody else's. Its canonical expression must be W3C's, and nobody else's. Formal expressions of it cannot be regarded as a reliable basis for open information interchange if they are not blessed by the W3C. Which brings me to variation #2,931 of my usual rant (ho hum): It would be uncharacteristic of the W3C to use something just because it already works; their policy is to re-invent (or at least re-name) as much as possible before it can become a Recommendation. This policy is evidently intended to work in the interest of preserving and aggrandizing the W3C as an institution that regards itself as the sole source for all ideas about information management, but, ipso facto, it just as evidently works against the public interest. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a *successful* institution that really did design, build, and adopt communications standards, all while making every single decision in a way that is calculated to maximize public benefit? It's too bad that private money is so unlikely to support such an institution, and that government money is so overwhelmingly likely to be spent unproductively (or even damagingly). Sigh. We all need a miracle, here. By judicious exercise of vision, faith and self-sacrifice, miracles sometimes do occur. Personally, I'm watching and hoping. It's not that the W3C is bad; it's that we desperately need something that is more motivated by the public interest than by its own interest. I'm encouraged by the Linux phenomenon. If Linux can meaningfully and beneficially corrode the mindshare dominance of Microsoft's most ill-conceived operating system technologies, the mindshare dominance of W3C's most ill-conceived technologies and practices must also be vulnerable. -Steve -- Steven R. Newcomb, President, TechnoTeacher, Inc. srn@t... http://www.techno.com ftp.techno.com NEW ADDRESS effective May 1, 2000: voice: +1 972 359 8160 fax +1 972 359 0270 405 Flagler Court Allen Texas 75013-2821 USA *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
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
|