Re: XLink: behavior must go!

At 09:13 AM 5/13/99 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>    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?

Er... just everything.

One of the key points of XLink is that it is _not_ bonded to a particular
style sheet language.  XLink is useful in contexts where XSLT is either too
much or too little, and provides common vocabulary that document developers
can use to describe links whatever final processing the documents may receive.

If your question is rephrased: 

"Is there anything within XLink itself that cannot be implemented by XSLT?"

Then it might be received a little more kindly by those of us who work with
XML in contexts where XSL (indeed style sheets, at times) is unnecessary.

Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer / Building XML Applications (June)
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
http://www.simonstl.com


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list