[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
hello.
> Steven Pemberton made a defence of the avoidance of XLink at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2002Aug/0026.html
> which I found wholly unconvincing.
not that i want to defend the strategy of coming up with new ways for
representing links, but isn't steve pemberton's argument another prrof
for the fact that it would be nice to have an xlink data model, and then
to have a syntax for it (xlink 1.0), which could be replaced by other
syntaxes if people absolutely need to have another syntax (xforms may
not be the best example here...) but still want to support xlink semantics?
if we had this, we could update didier martins count to:
a) four specs using xlink semantics of which
1) two specs use xlink 1.0 syntax (svg+mathml), and
2) two specs use a different syntax (xhtml+xforms).
and yes, i do see the danger of enccouraging people to use non-xlink 1.0
syntaxes with this strategy, and please don't bring up the 'how do i
recognize xlink syntax' debate again. but i still believe that having a
common data model is better than not having one, at least if people are
not willing to generally use xlink 1.0 syntax.
furthermore, we need an xlink data model anyway to properly support
xlink semantics in dom, css, xpath, and all the other things operating
on xml data.
cheers,
erik wilde - tel:+41-1-6325132 - fax:+41-1-6321035
mailto:net.dret@dret.net - http://dret.net/
computer engineering and networks laboratory
swiss federal institute of technology (eth)
* try not. do, or do not. there is no try. *
|
