>Does XML
actually "need" a credible linking specification?
I’m
uncomfortable with the word credible in this context. I suppose that html’s simple hyperlinking
is non-credible, when does the status of credibility accrue
to a spec. When it’s simply too incredible for common use? [very very sorry for the pun]
> Did I
misunderstand what XML was supposed to be about? Or has the vision or reality
changed irrevocably?
I
have the suspicion that it has changed, but I am not capable or indeed credible
enough to define that change in language, I define it in my gut. I suppose that
TAG is supposed to in some measure define that vision or reality, and generic
SGML does not seem to be part of it from the on and off reading I’ve been
doing. I think the vision now seems to be XML as some component of achieving on
one hand the Semantic Web and on the other the Programmable Web(web
services) and that SGML to most people working on these things does not come
into the discussion.
>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?
Perhaps
if it were a linking specification that went towards uniting the bifurcated
visions outlined above. I don’t know if XLink does
this, I sometimes feel that XLink doesn’t do
anything I want. I think there may be a lot of people out there in the “Real
World” who feel the same.
[
