[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Greetings,
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Ben Trafford wrote:
> Perhaps the
> XLink WG could take it up, a sort of XLink 1.1?
> [...]
> It seems to me that the answer is not to make HLink it's own
> special citizen, but rather to subsume its functionality into XLink, so
> that we have both unity and effectiveness.
Would XLink 1.1 be reasonable? HLink and XLink, though they share the
underlying ideas, are syntactically very different. It doesn't seem
sensible to ram both of them into the same specification.
Would it not be better, therefore, to drop the current XLink completely
and simply call HLink `XLink 2.0', since it doesn't really seem to
have too much to do with XHTML.
But then, I've never really understood the point of XLink. Which
brings me to the second thing....
> I tend to agree with Simon on this one. HLink's attribute
> remapping is really quite nice, for people who are into that sort of thing
> (which I'm not, personally, but I recognize the value of it).
My (HyTime-inflected) expectation of XLink was that attribute mapping was
the point of it, and I recall being surprised when it first appeared, that
there was no provision for that at all. Attribute remapping means that
documents and DTDs can import semantics for free, and a remapper-aware
processor can discover a new <goto place="...">content</goto> element
and know what it's expected to do with it. However, your description
of it as merely `really quite nice' suggests that there's a use-case
here for which XLink's practice of scattering special attributes is
an adequate solution. What am I missing?
All the best,
Norman
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Gray http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/
Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK norman@astro.gla.ac.uk
|
