Lists Home |
Date Index |
The problem may be that linking is not a general
purpose functionality. That is, linking, the term,
is defined to mean too many slightly overlapping
but otherwise distinct categories of functionality.
Again: should the declaration to traverse be the
same as the declaration of a relationship? In
the middle of that is the declaration of location,
but it isn't essential except to traversal. Hytime
separated the notion of linking (here, declaring
a relationship) from location (here, declaring
an address). URIs weld those together. If one
steps back and looks at both approaches, what
falls out of each? I think it important to
understand that without all of the other standard
definitions (eg, http headers), the URI approach
falls apart. That is, it takes more than a URI
to traverse a network.
Standards based simply on momentum can be
the same as clearing land by rolling parked
automobiles at the trees. It works but it
creates its own mess.
From: Micah Dubinko [mailto:MDubinko@cardiff.com]
>Do you have a comfort
>level for having done that or do you think that
>simplification (eg, just two common attributes)
>will support growth?
For general-purpose XML linking, I don't think anyone has a comfort level
for what works and what doesn't, otherwise, this discussion wouldn't be
The goal of picking only two attributes is to get the thing off the ground.
Adding all the whiz-bang features in SkunkLink 2.0 or some
application-specific language would certainly take several more attributes
(and not necessarily in the xml:namespace, as mentioned in the Q & A
Growth of standards is achieved through momentum. The situation where
everybody is sick to death of even talking about a subject is a terrible way
to make progress. SkunkLink aims to change that.