OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com> wrote:
| On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 07:03:29PM +0000, Arjun Ray wrote:
| > Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com> wrote:

|>  XLink also established policy on deployment: colonified names with 
|> associated namespace "declarations".  
| We didn't. It's an XML vocabulary designed at W3C, expect it to be
| anchored in a namespace ! 

The problem wasn't this anchoring stuff, it was how.  We all know about
the "solutions as requirements" game.

|> XLink is neither usable nor reusable without a name mapping mechanism: 
|> its design constraints on *other* languages are draconian.

| It's in general sufficient to simply tag with attributes from a foreign
| namespace to add Linking semantic. 

Again, the issue of how. 
| No it is not draconian from an XML point of view ... I disagree !

The design constraints are draconian because colonification is draconian -
when it postulates, in defiance of evidence, that a name mapping mechanism
is not necessary.  It is obliged to theorise that taxonomies will never
have to *share* data values (as in html:href "versus" xlink:href).  It
tries to make virtue out of necessity - if not dogma out of principle -
when multiple linking semantics in the same element become impossible *due
to syntax*. 

If *syntactic* impossibility isn't a design constraint, I don't know what


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS