[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 07:23:09PM -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> SkunkLink's approach makes far more sense to me for in-line linking than
> does XLink's approach, and seems likely to be far more to attractive to
> browser developers deciding whether or not to invest the time needed to
> incorporate such mechanisms in their browsers.
I like the SkunkLink approach as well. Linking is such a fundemental
component to information processing that it's surprising there isn't one
universal method to link two pieces of information out there.
It's also rather bothersome that nearly every W3C WG needs to invent a
form of hypertext to handle simple linking. Look at <xsl:include/>
vs. <xsl:import/>; perhaps there's a need for both types of inclusion
in XSLT, but why did WXS need to reinvent nearly the same thing with
<xsd:include/> and <xsl:import/>? (And let's not get started on XHTML
and HLink.) And let's not forget the bandage XInclude provides....
> I'd love to have out-of-line linking someday, but don't consider XLink's
> approach to that particularly sensible either. (Yes, I'm working on
> more positive proposals. The XLink WG is dead. Long live - or get
> started - XML hypertext linking!)
I've heard the praise and hype for HyTime and out-of-line linking,
but I can't say as I've seen a single practical need for it. What
would a sensible out-of-line linking language provide that
SkunkLink+RDF (or the moral equivalent) *can't* provide?
Z.
|
