[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>>Blunt is fine, but this particular instance is tragically unhelpful.
>>Why is it ridiculous on its face, does it have a big red shiny nose or
>>something?
>
> Ah, "tragically unhelpful". I take it that means that we're getting
> close to the heart of the problem.
It looks like it :)
> WHY "ONE LINKING MECHANISM TO RULE THEM ALL" IS RIDICULOUS
[snip very interesting exposé]
I think different things can be meant by "generic linking". One is
"capture all possible linking constructs" which you describe, and which
I agree is over-ambitious. Another is "no matter what vocabulary you're
fed, you can still tell when something is a (simple) link (and which
bloody specific kind you couldn't possibly care less about)".
I want the latter. I need something that's just one notch above
heuristics based on attribute local names and regexen, and doesn't
require knowing the given grammar, but stops short of telling me
everything in various clumsy ways and leaves all further complexity to
the grammar itself. As such, even HLink might be going too far (even
though I could live with it).
I agree that XLink fails in being too ambitious, but I'm happier with
the ability to just look for @xlink:href than with nothing at all.
Perhaps xml-dev could kill this particular permathread with a concrete
proposal?
--
Robin Berjon
|
