[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> --part1_126.1501a4e3.2a8775b6_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> 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?
I think that those who wish to make sure that generic, semi-structured and
loosely-coupled data representation is a hallmark of the promise and power of
XML should rally loud for a generic linking technology. Linking is such a
fundamental portion of the value of such data representation that it's already
been re-invented several times in the context of XML alone. Each time it is
reinvented, we lose some of the genericity and some of the loose coupling.
I, for one don't think folks who see XML as merely a conventient tool for
building a few monolithic vocabularies have eminent domain over XML any more
than the RPC/strong-datatyping crowd, so as far as I'm concerned, XML still
needs a general and credible linking specification.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 -
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/libra
ry/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF -
http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A
1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC
|
