[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Tearing the Hyperlink Problem Apart (was Re: Re:
Hi Ben, Ben said: What I'd like to see the list discuss are the substantive problems raised by all of these groups, and then tear them apart, one by one....just like in the good ol' days of XML, when the XML WG would drop stuff on XML-dev, see it hashed out, and then make a decision. That was a good process. It worked. Didier replies: Ben, you cannot imagine how my brain is starving for that kind of process. I am so tired of Byzantine fights that I wondering if I do not have some ancestor affected by the Roman's Byzantine fights and if some trace of this aversion remains in my DNA :-) (Even if I am half laplander :-) ). <Indented to the XML-DEV community> Why don't we use the Karl Popper epistemological process? Isn't that better than my dad is stronger than yours' kind of process :0 (and My ET will be glad to see that we stopped regressing and that we are evolving :-) Ben said: "What do we lose with XHTML dropping 'href' in favour of a namespace-specific attribute, be it XLink or otherwise, in consideration of the fact that they've already changed huge chunks of a familiar markup language?" Didier replies: >From the top of my hat (trying to be as much objective as I can) I would say that it prevent XHTML to be backward compatible with previous specs by increasing the distance between the legacy and the new XHTML spec. If however, other major modifications are part of the spec that could lead, by themselves, to such gap and lack of backward compatibility, then, I would say that the backward issue became a ... non issue. Another reason would be because of a total refusal of namespaces. But in the case of xlink, we do not find major breakdowns because of namespace usage. Or do we? If yes what are they? Any other reasons that we can add to the list? (off course there are some others I am sure) If others help me maintain the list, I'll do my part and carry the torch for a while. Ben said: Here's another: "Should any generic hyperlinking specification either provide behaviour instructions or provide some mechanism to refer to behaviour instructions?" (e.g. XLink points to the XHTML spec for the behaviour of a simple link in an XHTML application, and XLink points to XSLFOs for the processing of the same simple link in an XSLFO-aware browser, etc.) Didier replies: This is more a "what do you like?" kind of question and it leads to a divergent process instead of leading to a convergent process. So, even if I am tempted to answer, I'll stick to the Karl Popper process of trying to invalidate the xlink theory/process. Cheers Didier PH Martin
|
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
|