[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
8/8/2002 9:21:48 AM, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:
>Personally, I'm happy to support prior agreements when all parties agree
>about the nature of the agreement and are willing to continue supporting
>that agreement over time, but I have some deep suspicions about the nature
>of agreement that leave me suspecting that technologists and technologies
>often live in a Hobbesian world. The results are less difficult than those
>Hobbes predicted: we don't all seem to be living the "nasty, brutish, and
>short" life, nor do I see much need for us to throw ourselves before the
>mercy of an all-powerful tyrant, which I believe was Hobbes' solution [1]
>to the ugliness of this world.
8/9/2002 5:52:26 AM, AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:
>However, XLink 1.0 already defines linking attributes which can be placed on
>any XML element, not just XHTML elements.
>
>We then appear to have two (competing?) hyperlinking technologies intended
>for use on some/all XML elements.
>
>Does it make sense for this competition to continue?
Hmm, interesting pair of messages. If it does NOT make sense for the
competition between the XLink linking syntax and the HTML linking
syntax to continue, doesn't that imply that something like Hobbes'
"tyrant" should be protecting us from ourselves? I for one am happy
that the life of a standard that doesn't doesn't hit the right mix
of elegance and utility will be "nasty, brutish, and short."
I have no feelings as to whether XLink should or
should not be used by XHTML, but asking it to be supported simply
out of family loyalty or desire for consistency doesn't
sound like a good idea. How many kingdoms have fallen because the
Tyrant appointed an incompetent relative to a position of power :~)
|
