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

RE: Current status of XLink

• To: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• Subject: RE: Current status of XLink
• From: Robin Cover <robin@i...>
• Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:05:08 -0600 (CST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20040326175008.073ca0c0@p...>

XLink is normatively referenced in the
Geography Markup Language (GML) 3.1.0 specification

http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-03-26-a.html#xlink-schematron

-----------------------------------------------------
Robin Cover
XML Cover Pages
WWW: http://xml.coverpages.org
Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletter.html
ISOGEN: rcover@i...
OASIS: robin.cover@o...

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Ben Trafford wrote:

> 
> At 01:35 PM 3/26/2004 +0000, Michael Kay wrote:
> >In my view the mess is because XLink simply doesn't fit into the layering 
> >of the XML architecture. The whole point of XML is that you can choose any 
> >names you like for your objects and attributes, and give them any 
> >semantics that you like (typically captured in schemas and stylesheets). 
> >So why should relationships be different from objects and attributes, and 
> >require fixed names and fixed semantics?
> 
>          There wasn't a sufficient XML architecture in place during XLink's 
> development, frankly. As I've mentioned before, this was 1998. Nobody had a 
> clear view of how things were going to proceed.
> 
> >Hyperlinking is something that belongs in the user interface layer, not in 
> >the stored information. The stored information needs to hold relationship 
> >information in a much more abstract form. The hyperlinks, like all other 
> >user interface objects, should be generated by the stylesheet. It's 
> >because the hyperlinking community failed to recognize this that the idea 
> >failed to catch on. The other consequence of this is that there is a 
> >gaping hole in the XML story as to how abstract relationships should be 
> >modelled.
> 
>          The hyperlinking community actually recognized it quite early. You 
> have XPath because we recognized it, and thus, a unified semantic for 
> referring to parts of an XML document. Notice the names on the XPath 1.0 
> document? James Clark (XSLT) and Steve DeRose (XPointer and XLink). 
> Unfortunately, that's where the rapprochement stopped.
> 
>          XSLT and XSL-FO (not mention CSS) -should- have functionality to 
> deal with the kind of hyperlinking constructs we were trying to build into 
> XLink. If they did, the structure of the language would've been much 
> different, I think. Unfortunately, that never happened.
> 
>          My two cents: I think XLink should be scrapped (even though it has 
> my name on it - *sigh*). The XSL and CSS Working Groups should be made to 
> sit down with a new XLink WG, and forced to hammer out the stylistic and 
> behavioral aspects of good hyperlinking. And then the XLink folks should 
> make a specific that describes relationships, not behavior. This should've 
> happened years ago.
> 
>          If such stylistic and behavioral support existed in the first 
> place, maybe we'd be seeing a better quality of hyperlinking on the Web, 
> instead of the ugly morass of scripting tricks we're seeing now.
> 
> --->Ben 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> 
> 

• References:
  • RE: Current status of XLink
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Current status of XLink
• Next by Date: Can XML namespaces get into a recursive loop?
• Previous by thread: RE: Current status of XLink
• Next by thread: Re: Current status of XLink
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread