[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Len,
XLink can provide the syntax
and very basic linking semantics on top of which this can be built.
It only becomes hard if you insist that XLink must define all
possible linking semantics and behavior for all applications that use
it. This is a mini version of the common markup fallacy that one
vocabulary suits all uses.
Didier replies:
Exactly. I just hope Len that lessons of the past have been understood
but what I see happening these days do not lead me to think otherwise. I
just did an experiment with an XHTML document containing xlinks and an
SVG document containing xlink. The beauty is that I could process both
the same stylesheet in order to extract the links and consider these
documents only as link base. You know, from a practical point of view,
the usefulness of re-using the same specs is simply translated into
re-use of actual code (in that case XSLT code). In terms of business we
increase the ROI on our investment in XML. But I guess that information
overload, knowledge re-use, ROI are all foreign words not part of the WG
vocabulary. Or maybe I am missing something and just made fool of
myself. If only we could know why the WG do not want to re-use the Xlink
specs. Politics? Interests of some parties? More noble intentions?
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
