[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Uche Ogbuji wrote:
>
>...
> But I don't see the high costs you suggest. People can learn as much of XLink
> as you use in your vocabulary as easily as they can learn a specialized
> linking vocabulary.
I don't think that's true. I claim that (a) is easier to learn than (b):
(a) <myns:PurchaseOrder myns:customerRecord="http://....";>
(b) <myns:PurchaseOrder><myns:customerRecord xlink:href="...">
It's one less namespace to look up and it is expressed entirely in
domain-specific terms.
> .... And even if they only ever use one other system that uses
> XLink again in their life, they will have the benefit of prior knowledge. As
> for the adding one more namespace: I have no truck with that. XML is verbose.
It isn't the verbosity. It's the number of things to keep in your head.
We're heading to a place where people embed XLink in RDF in their
vocabulary in SOAP in XSLT. The pre-namespace philosophy was always to
try to compress multiple layers into one seamless vocabulary that the
user dealt with and then use external declarations to refactor into
layers. That might not work for (e.g.) SOAP in XSLT but it should work
for (e.g.) RDF in ICE.
--
"When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim
suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith
-- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk."
Congressman James Traficant.
|
