Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XLink olden days
 Uche Ogbuji writes: > Thanks for the history. It's a fun read. I was hoping that it would > shed some light on the technical problems the XHTML folks encountered > in trying to use XLink. IOW, they don't really help explain current > arguments to me. And why in particular do you think namespaces are a > problem in XLink? The only point I've heard from the XHTML folks so > far wrt XMLNS are that the XLink namespace is extra to type. Surely > this isn't what you mean? I think the notion is that XLink was originally a toolkit for describing linking semantics, which used an architectural forms [based|like] transformation to connect those semantics to other vocabularies. There was a vocabulary, but you didn't have to use that vocabulary explicitly thanks to the remapping. In later drafts, post-namespaces, XLink became just a vocabulary. To use XLink, you must use attributes in the XLink namespace. While in some ways this just a shift from the abstract to the concrete, it's a pretty large imposition on vocabularies that already have linking semantics (like HTML - not just A but images, forms, objects, etc.). For yet a different approach to squaring this circle, see: http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink-naming/ I'm not sure I particularly love any of these mechanisms, but I can certainly see why the XHTML folks are angry. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com 
|
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
|
|||||||||
