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

Re: RDDL(2): new version up

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:32:58 +0100
• In-reply-to: <20040119172003.GD26339@m...>
• Organization: Dyomedea (http://dyomedea.com)
• References: <0494A708-49EF-11D8-B62D-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <1074458181.24853.364.camel@delleric> <8CDD5CB2-4A08-11D8-81B2-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <p06010206bc31a291caf6@[192.168.254.4]> <008a01c3deaa$18e89c50$6403a8c0@ARIMATHEA> <1074532164.24859.634.camel@delleric> <20040119172003.GD26339@m...>

On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 18:20, John Cowan wrote:

> As to the uptake of XLink, it is used by XTM, the XML representation of
> topic maps, which is definitely important within its scope.

It's also used in SVG and OpenOffice to name two other specs that come
to mind.

I am surprised to see that "not using XLink" seems now to be considered
as a benefit by itself.

A while ago, XLink was to be the technology that would save the web and
now it has become evil because that has not be the case.

Why not just take it for what it is: a spec with a domain of application
that can be useful in its domain (and I think that it's the case for
RDDL) and useless in other domains (as for any specification)?

Eric
-- 
Have you ever thought about unit testing XSLT templates?
                                                     http://xsltunit.org
Upcoming XML schema languages tutorial:
 - Santa Clara  -half day- (15/03/2004)        http://masl.to/?J24916E96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Henrik Martensson <henrik.martensson@b...>

• References:
  • RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: "Jeff Rafter" <lists@j...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Next by Date: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Previous by thread: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Next by thread: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread