[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:47:37 -0500, Chiusano Joseph
<chiusano_joseph@bah.com> wrote:
> (1) Too heavyweight (i.e. too much information required to describe
> links, even in the simplest mode)
Sadly, I think it's true. If they had only allowed the xlink:type
attribute to be optional (defaulting to "simple"), then people could
have used
<my:reference xlink:href="foo.xml"/>
rather than
<my:reference xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="foo.xml"/>
and then simply ignored the rest of the XLink specification. I'm not
sure that that would have been enough to save XLink, but it at least
would have made the simplest case less objectionable (counting on
default values from a DTD or schema doesn't cut it).
> (2) Includes presentation aspects with data in a manner that was not
> originally intended for XML
Remember that XLink was originally "XML Part 2: Linking" or something
similar back in 1997, when XML was intended as HTML: The Next
Generation. When they were thinking of XML mainly as a structured
replacement for HTML, the presentational stuff made sense.
All the best,
David
--
http://www.megginson.com/
|
