[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Erik Wilde wrote:
> maybe that's the point. i don't have a markup problem. the problem is
> that some useful semantics (hyperlinking) are being viewed as if they
> were tied to markup (which they currently are because xlink 1.0 only
> defines markup). however, the semantics should be defined somewhere
> else, and then people could choose whatever markup they like
This is a popular view, which goes on to complain about the fact that
the definition of XML 1.0 was purely syntactical and wish that the data
model had come first, with lots of syntax choices. This point of view
is wrong. XML maximizes interoperability by being defined at the syntax
level. This was a deliberate choice based on a huge amount of experience.
XLink's definition is very highly interoperable. Others are arguing
that the penalty of having to use namespaces is too high, or that the
semantics of actuate are either too little or too much, or that there is
no built-in syntax remapping to do retroactive support of existing
hypertext dialects. All these arguments are worth having. But bear in
mind that every time you move your representation away from the
syntactic level, you pay a severe interoperability price. Maybe in the
case of XLink the price is worth paying (I don't think so, but can see
the other side of the argument). -Tim
|
