[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
| My (HyTime-inflected) expectation of XLink was that attribute mapping was
| the point of it,
Mostly it was, in the beginning, when the namespace bogosity was not yet
beloved dogma.
| and I recall being surprised when it first appeared, that there was no
| provision for that at all.
Once colonification became a Standing Order, perforce XLink development
under W3C aegis had to ob^H^Hconf^H^H^H^Hreconsider.
| Attribute remapping means that documents and DTDs can import semantics
| for free,
By annotative means, yes.
| and a remapper-aware processor can discover a new <goto place="..."
| >content</goto> element and know what it's expected to do with it.
Yes, the semantics of remapping are entirely generic and mechanical, in
effect operating at the syntax level.
| 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?
The case when all kids agree that only one kid can play in the sandbox.
(The supposed necessity of colonification rests on the dogmatic premise
that name mapping is *un*necessary.)
|
