[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
Hi Arjun Arjun said: In favor of silly-prefix:href? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Didier replies: It could be perceived that way or it could open new doors like having one to one and one to many links. So instead of simply reshuffling the existing cards we may take the occasion to add new functionalities like one to many links. And about the prefix, you know, the problem with architectural forms is that you have basically two choices: a) state the inheritance mechanism is a separate document. Hoops, I just committed a "taboo", it was existing in SGML. b) in the absence of an external document, you specify the inheritance mechanism in the document itself. Maybe, instead of using the namespace stuff, the xlink WG could have used a "types" attribute to indicate inheritance. if the "types" attribute could behaves as idrefs. (ex: types ="xlink gizmo" ). Otherwise, you have to use attributes like xlink:type="...", gizmo:type="...", etc... to prevent name collision (something the "types" attribute cannot do). I personally would have preferred the "types" attribute kind of thing but the namespace stuff has been used instead. In any case, nice or ugly, one to many links are a useful thing and I do not know why the WG wants absolutely to reshuffle existing card instead of taking the occasion to add new useful features. Even if these new features are more semantics than rendering features. This is still a mystery for me and a kind of living proof of Mintzberg thesis :-) (1) http://www.henrymintzberg.com/index.html 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
|