[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 02:09:44PM -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 1:13 PM -0700 9/17/02, Ann Navarro wrote:
>
> >XHTML 2.0 is an XML application, and is not going to be based upon
> >an assumed arcane knowledge of it's semantics, or a requirement for
> >hard-wired DTDs. Let's stop that assumption quickly.
>
>
> The why define XHTML 2.0 at all? Why not just use raw XML? If there's
> no predefined meaning for semantics or behavior for particular
> elements or attributes, then just what are we getting out of XHTML at
> all that doesn't exist now in XML?
It's the crux of the problem. XLink designed a vocabulary (it was
what everybody in the Working Group felt we were asked to do considering
our charter). Another group is also free to design another vocabulary,
reusing or not XLink and the associated (minimal) semantic.
Now some people would prefer to have a schemas language instead of
a fixed vocabulary, this may or may not work. The way the semantic get
extracted to be applied to an instance is then completely different,
the problem space is different, the kind of runtime problems and
implementations support needed are different too.
XSLT can in some way be considered a schemas language to manipulate
an instance, in spite of a larger and larger deployement on the
Web clients it still can't be considered for use to populate XML on the
Web and have the client render it. I wonder why a similar scheme
reduced to linking would have more chance of being deployed quickly
up to an usable state ... Maybe this will work, the risk is that by
multiplying the ways to put XML hypertext on the Web, it may just get
delayed more, or simply never get there.
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
|
