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

Re: xlink 1.1

• From: rjelliffe@allette.com.au
• To: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
• Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:53:03 +1100

> Dave Pawson wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-xlink11-20100225/Overview-diff10.html  diff
>> to 1.0
>>
>> PR http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/
>
> Um, why?
>
> Is the shift from URI to IRI that important?
>
> Are there users of XLink demanding revision?
>
> I would have liked to see XLink succeed, but I think it's pretty clear
> that it didn't.  Zombies do walk the earth lately, but I can't figure
> out what's re-animating this one.

Because real standards get maintained to keep in alignment with their base
technologies. It is tedious and even ludicrous, but a good thing and the
right thing.

At the time of XML's development, there was no IRI standard just the
concept, so XML had to fudge it. Now there is, so XML-era standards can be
more explicit.

Btw, the company I work for most very frequently uses (for the systems we
build for clients) a collaboration platform that uses XLink internally: it
is not surfaced to users at all, and implemented on top of a RDBMS.

Cheers
Rick

• References:
  • xlink 1.1
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>