[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: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
• Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:17:47 +0000

> From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk] 
> Subject: Re:  xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
> 
> On 13/04/2012 13:36, Rushforth, Peter wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > @xml:href
> 
> As far as I understand your suggestion, having built in link 
> semantics was part of the original 3-part plan for XML (along 
> with styling) but that's xlink:href rather than xml:href. I 
> can't see that adding another standardised href attribute in 
> addition to xlink's would be that popular (especially given 
> that xlink isn't exactly the most successful part of xml)

XLink has a lot
of attributes the designer has to consider (its complicated), 
but none of them really seem to support the "Web" IME.  I'm not
thinking so much about link semantics as I am about practical
simple application of web infrastructure in XML, along the lines
of "what's the simplest thing that could possibly work?".

For example, in scanning http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xlink11-20100506/#linking-elements
I don't see anything about the media type of the resource which is
linked to, so there's no advertisement to the client what can be
negotiated without actually trying a link.

Also, I suppose you have to declare the xlink namespace in order to
use xlinks.  Something I was trying to avoid by going to the xml:
namespace.

But, you're correct, adding yet one more "standard" might not solve
anything.  Then again, it might catch on.

Cheers,
Peter

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
    • From: "Toby Considine" <Toby.Considine@gmail.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: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>