[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan writes:
> 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.
Sure - they just didn't bring in the whole machinery for AF. The XLink
work is described as a particular case for XLink, not a more general
system.
> > 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.
Email didn't face scoping issues or the infinite hall of tautological
mirrors that is the URI universe. I don't think the comparison is
plausible.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
