[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com> wrote:
| 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:
|> 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).
Nothing wrong with that, but XLink also established policy on deployment:
colonified names with associated namespace "declarations". The quibble
about xlink:href versus plain old href aside, the policy "works" so long
as at most one xlink:href is needed per element. IOW, the policy rules
out a priori the possibility of multiple xlink:href's in a single element.
Was this in the charter too?
| Another group is also free to design another vocabulary, reusing or not
| XLink and the associated (minimal) semantic.
XLink is neither usable nor reusable without a name mapping mechanism: its
design constrainsts on *other* languages are draconian.
| XSLT can in some way be considered a schemas language to manipulate
| an instance,
Perhaps, but XSLT should not be necessary for mere adoption of external
"vocabularies". Now that I've thought about it a bit more, there is
indeed a point to the term "integration language" (cf. "host language"):
an integration language is designed to make XSLT transforms unnecessary
for structural congruence (or any equivalent criterion for recognition).
I'll even propose the point of order that, whenever XSLT is used to pull
implementation chestnuts out of definitional fires, it's time to start
over.
|
