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

RE: RDDL(2): new version up

• To: XML Developer List <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: RDDL(2): new version up
• From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@c...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:02:12 -0800

(Do we really want to reignite this permathread here and now?)

Why does XLink work pretty well in monolithic vocabularies?

Because there the disadvantages (complexity, namespace haze, lack of
implementations) don't have much effect.

Why does XLink have problems with mixed vocabularies?

Because it uses a single attribute name (xlink:href) for multiple purposes.
One way to keep things separate is proposed at SkunkLink.
http://dubinko.info/writing/skunklink/

.micah

-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:58 AM
To: 'Micah Dubinko'; 'Simon St.Laurent'; XML Developer List
Subject: RE:  RDDL(2): new version up


Why?

len

From: Micah Dubinko [mailto:MDubinko@c...]

XLink works pretty well in monolithic vocabularies, but runs into problems
when you start mixing and matching.

• Prev by Date: RE: Sweet nostalgia
• Next by Date: RE: RDDL(2): new version up
• Previous by thread: RE: RDDL(2): new version up
• Next by thread: RE: RDDL(2): new version up
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread