[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 17:38, Norman Walsh wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> / "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> was heard to say:
> | Jonathan Robie writes:
> |> I would like to have a small number of constructs, such as hrefs,
> |> that can be used across XML vocabularies. What's wrong with that?
> |
> | Nothing, provided you don't expect the whole world to use your
> | semantics. In a smaller scope than "all XML", you're welcome to do
> | whatever you like with such things.
>
> Given the recent discussion of XLink and HLink and given that the
> specific example here is href, I get the distinct impression that you
> feel as if someone is trying to force the whole world to use a
> specific set of semantics.
Flaming apart, I am surprized that you bring together these two threads
to make your point: my impression was that HLink had been proposed
*because* W3C XML Schema has been rejected at some point by the W3C as a
candidate to provide a mapping between XHTML and XLink and that the
recent discussion of HLink and XLink was rather demonstrating Simon's
position that schemas are not a universal solution.
More specificaly, I remember that W3C XML Schema has been considered to
map XHTML into XLink:
http://xmlhack.com/read.php?item=781
But don't remember if the reason why it has been abandoned has been made
public.
Can you elaborate or share some links with us?
When you first think about it, it seems quite easy to say that
xhtml:img/@src has a type xlink:href and that xhtml:img has fixed
attributes xlink:type and friends. There must be some hidden reason why
this wouldn't work!
Thanks
Eric
--
Rendez-vous à Paris.
http://www.technoforum.fr/integ2002/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
