[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
> I think the notion is that XLink was originally a toolkit for describing
> linking semantics, which used an architectural forms [based|like]
An architectural form *exactly*. That's where the attribute-renaming
and link-type (which is really element-renaming) stuff comes from.
> In later drafts, post-namespaces, XLink became just a vocabulary. To
> use XLink, you must use attributes in the XLink namespace.
It occurs to me that the shift from SGML-style renaming to namespaces
is essentially like the shift from uucp email addressing to domainist
(@-based) email addressing. We've gone from an environment where mail
is routed based on the best discoverable path from here to there,
to a system in which every mail destination has an absolute name
which says nothing about delivery.
Almost everybody, except perhaps Peter Honeyman, agrees that this is an
improvement.
--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."
--Brian K. Reid
|
