[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> robin.berjon@expway.fr (Robin Berjon) writes:
>>I've used generic XLinks to find out about dependencies between XML
>>documents in a variety of arbitrary vocabularies, and I've found it
>>useful. I'm not in love with XLink itself, but I'd rather have it than
>>nothing.
>
> This feels like an argument from laziness, and I have a hard time
> respecting it. I think analyzing documents should mean learning the
> vocabularies they use and how they use them.
All I need is knowledge that there are relationships between resources.
Why should I have to teach my code about various different constructs in
two dozen vocabularies? I don't see what's not to respect in laziness.
> This is really basic linking; I don't think you appreciate what a rich
> set of possibilities is involved here.
I appreciate it, and am happy to leave it to another layer.
>>>Bad sex is not pretty good, IMHO.
>>
>>Still beats XHTML 2 linking though :p
>
> I think we've had different life experiences.
I'm sorry to hear a hint that sex can get that bad.
--
Robin Berjon
|
