[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Didier replies:
> Like you I am not always please with what's coming out of W3C but most
> of all I am not pleased at all having face a schizophrenic behavior and
> no consistency. If W3C came out with a link specs, good or bad, its
> better that other W3 specs use it for internal consistency or, if a
> major breakdown is discovered, that the xlink spec is updated. I won't
> defend each groups but I want to know, in a structured document, the
> reasons why Xlink is a showstopper for XHTML. It would help to
> understand why xlink is broken.
I dunno. I myself could not put it so simply, because I'm very happy not to
have the W3C wed itself to WXS or XQuery in follow-on specifications. I don't
have an empirical objection to providing alternatives to XLink, if these are
needed. I just like to see the clear argument as to what is wrong with XLink
in the first place. This has been argued to death in the case of WXS, and I
think that some very smart people (Clark, Makoto, Jelliffe, Mulani, etc.) have
come up with strong reasons for opening up schema language diversity. I'm
having trouble (and I know I'm not alone) finding the clear and coherent
arguments against XLink. I'm quite open to having my mind changed (and I'm
already drifting a tad bit).
--
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
|
