[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design

• To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:56:36 -0600

Or admit that there is actually only ONE way to link on the WWW:

someProtocolMorphToKickOffAFunction://somethingOneHopesIsWhereItIsSupposedTo
BeWhenFunctionFires

       ^                                            ^
       |                                            |

 The Computer Science Part                 The Social Behavior Part

Everything else is application semantics.  It is 
the application semantics that don't mesh although one 
can make that happen by the same acts that influence 
norms of social behavior just as the link design is 
imposed top down.

There is no reason XLink won't work.  It is a matter 
of persuasion.  So far, no persuasion has been effective. 
As I said earlier, that is because there are easier ways 
that only depend on different scales of local control.

len


From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]

If you think linking is a simple enough field to be modeled this way,
I'm afraid I have to suggest that you haven't taken linking nearly
seriously enough.  Even in the simplest cases, though, I have a really
hard time finding benefits to XLink that aren't outweighed by the costs
of using it.

Junk it.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Q&A Markup Language?
• Next by Date: Re: genx - consensus items
• Previous by thread: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Next by thread: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread