[
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
is.
|
