|
|
XML "needs" a credible linking specification? Discuss.
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 10/08/2002 22:16:36 GMT Daylight Time, uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com writes:
Listen, folks. XML *needs* a general and credible linking specification.
XLink is not perfect, but with the emergence of things such as XHTML 2.0,
there is an opportunity to improve it in the light of practical needs of
another WG.
Does XML actually "need" a credible linking specification?
Way back in pre-history (around 1998) when the W3C's vision for XML ostensibly was to serve generic SGML on the Web a linking specification made a lot of sense. At least, if you made the assumption, as I did, that this generic SGML was to be (at least partly) for human consumption. Hyperlinking was essential, in my view.
Did I misunderstand what XML was supposed to be about? Or has the vision or reality changed irrevocably? ... Or has the intervening period been merely a delay in a progression (?) towards serving generic SGML?
If, as seems currently to be the case, the serving of "generic SGML" on the Web seems to have been largely ignored by the ordinary user do we really need a linking specification for XML?
[Sotto voce: Isn't the continued development of XHTML a tacit admission that we have moved away from the notion (vision?) of "generic SGML" to slightly tidied up HTML?]
If we do need a linking specification for XML, then what do we need a linking specification to do?
Are we in a transition period where XLink is a first attempt (who would consider HTML 1.0 seriously now?) at an important and essential technology in the XML family or is XLink an attempt at a solution to a need for serving generic SGML which is rapidly receding into the mists of time?
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|