Re: XLink: behavior must go!
Martin Bryan wrote: >Paul Prescod wrote: > >>I believe that the XLink behavioral attributes should be removed. >Theoretically they mix presentation and structure. This causes all kinds >of practical problems addressed below: > >Behaviour *must* stay. What we need is some mechanism for passing through >behaviour control properties from the instance to the XSLT. The behaviour >attribute provides us with a standardized point which we can query from >within XSLT to determine which types of behaviour a particular instance of >an object should have. In fact the behaviour attribute should move from the >XLink to XML standard, as xml:behaviour-control, but that is is bit too >radical for people to bite off just yet. In the meantime it is vital that at >least XLink provides us with a standardized mechanism for controlling >instance behaviour. (Paul is right to say this is really a "hints" >thing -but it is something more than a hint - it is a set of parameters that >can be used to control behaviour where appropriate.) > Is there anything within XLink itself that cannot be replaced by XSLT now that doc() and docref() have been defined? Does XLink not become something akin to a standard set of XSLT templates used for handling URI traversal? doc() and docref(), as well as unification with XPointer turn XSLT into a generalized graph transformation language. Could the XLink spec itself become an XSLT include file? Jonathan Borden http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format