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

RE: Xlink Isn't Dead

• From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:03:58 -0400

At 12:59 PM 9/22/2006, Len Bullard wrote:
>And if the purpose of a given link is NOT to send a resource to a rendering
>application, what then?

         Then it's irrelevant to the process of what to do with it 
after its modelled. I don't believe you can reasonably standardize 
the behavior of generic applications that operate below user 
visibility, at least in terms of how they deal with modelled 
relationships. Each specific user domain will develop their own 
standards and tools based on what they need the unseen links to do.

         The primary purpose of XLink was to display links in a 
rendering context. That's my point of interest in this discussion. 
I'm sure other people have thoughts on links that operate like 
plumbing, behind the curtains. I really don't, by and large. To me, 
trying to get the concepts behind XLink working at that level is wrong-headed.

         What are your thoughts on the topic?

--->Ben 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@y...>
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Peter Hunsberger" <peter.hunsberger@g...>

• References:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>