[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XLink and XForms
hello. > Steven Pemberton made a defence of the avoidance of XLink at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2002Aug/0026.html > which I found wholly unconvincing. not that i want to defend the strategy of coming up with new ways for representing links, but isn't steve pemberton's argument another prrof for the fact that it would be nice to have an xlink data model, and then to have a syntax for it (xlink 1.0), which could be replaced by other syntaxes if people absolutely need to have another syntax (xforms may not be the best example here...) but still want to support xlink semantics? if we had this, we could update didier martins count to: a) four specs using xlink semantics of which 1) two specs use xlink 1.0 syntax (svg+mathml), and 2) two specs use a different syntax (xhtml+xforms). and yes, i do see the danger of enccouraging people to use non-xlink 1.0 syntaxes with this strategy, and please don't bring up the 'how do i recognize xlink syntax' debate again. but i still believe that having a common data model is better than not having one, at least if people are not willing to generally use xlink 1.0 syntax. furthermore, we need an xlink data model anyway to properly support xlink semantics in dom, css, xpath, and all the other things operating on xml data. cheers, erik wilde - tel:+41-1-6325132 - fax:+41-1-6321035 mailto:net.dret@d... - http://dret.net/ computer engineering and networks laboratory swiss federal institute of technology (eth) * try not. do, or do not. there is no try. *
|
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
|