[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
XLink is normatively referenced in the
Geography Markup Language (GML) 3.1.0 specification
http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-03-26-a.html#xlink-schematron
-----------------------------------------------------
Robin Cover
XML Cover Pages
WWW: http://xml.coverpages.org
Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletter.html
ISOGEN: rcover@innodata-isogen.com
OASIS: robin.cover@oasis-open.org
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Ben Trafford wrote:
>
> At 01:35 PM 3/26/2004 +0000, Michael Kay wrote:
> >In my view the mess is because XLink simply doesn't fit into the layering
> >of the XML architecture. The whole point of XML is that you can choose any
> >names you like for your objects and attributes, and give them any
> >semantics that you like (typically captured in schemas and stylesheets).
> >So why should relationships be different from objects and attributes, and
> >require fixed names and fixed semantics?
>
> There wasn't a sufficient XML architecture in place during XLink's
> development, frankly. As I've mentioned before, this was 1998. Nobody had a
> clear view of how things were going to proceed.
>
> >Hyperlinking is something that belongs in the user interface layer, not in
> >the stored information. The stored information needs to hold relationship
> >information in a much more abstract form. The hyperlinks, like all other
> >user interface objects, should be generated by the stylesheet. It's
> >because the hyperlinking community failed to recognize this that the idea
> >failed to catch on. The other consequence of this is that there is a
> >gaping hole in the XML story as to how abstract relationships should be
> >modelled.
>
> The hyperlinking community actually recognized it quite early. You
> have XPath because we recognized it, and thus, a unified semantic for
> referring to parts of an XML document. Notice the names on the XPath 1.0
> document? James Clark (XSLT) and Steve DeRose (XPointer and XLink).
> Unfortunately, that's where the rapprochement stopped.
>
> XSLT and XSL-FO (not mention CSS) -should- have functionality to
> deal with the kind of hyperlinking constructs we were trying to build into
> XLink. If they did, the structure of the language would've been much
> different, I think. Unfortunately, that never happened.
>
> My two cents: I think XLink should be scrapped (even though it has
> my name on it - *sigh*). The XSL and CSS Working Groups should be made to
> sit down with a new XLink WG, and forced to hammer out the stylistic and
> behavioral aspects of good hyperlinking. And then the XLink folks should
> make a specific that describes relationships, not behavior. This should've
> happened years ago.
>
> If such stylistic and behavioral support existed in the first
> place, maybe we'd be seeing a better quality of hyperlinking on the Web,
> instead of the ugly morass of scripting tricks we're seeing now.
>
> --->Ben
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
|
