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

RE: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type

• From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
• To: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>, David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:59:09 +0000

Yes I'm aware of xlink.  The reason I'm thinking about going lower in
the layer stack is the re-invention thing.  Not that XLink is not
useful, but for example atom did not use it, and there are probably other
examples.  

Maybe just the fact that the document has to define the namespace is
enough to deter the use of the xlink:href.  xml:lang etc don't suffer from
this.

Linking is not inherent only to presentation, necessarily.  It is vital to changing
application state, however.  As I understand it, mastery of the web was a goal of
XML, so I'm just dreaming a little.

Cheers,
Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Welch [mailto:andrew.j.welch@gmail.com] 
> Sent: April 13, 2012 08:50
> To: Rushforth, Peter
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re:  xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
> 
> > So that makes me wonder if
> > XML would benefit from a _single_ simple link standard, 
> inherited by 
> >all XML vocabularies  in the same manner as xml:base,  xml:lang .
> 
> Just checking as you didn't mention it - are you aware of xlink:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/
> 
> Usually when this question comes up, the answer is that 
> linking is done in a different layer to the xml (the 
> presentation layer).
> 
> 
> --
> Andrew Welch
> http://andrewjwelch.com
> 

• References:
  • xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
    • From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
  • Re: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>