You are referring to the "xlink:show" attribute which clearly
belongs in the UI space. Partially this is also true for the
"xlink:actuate" attribute. You have to agree that this type of element
has equal use in both "information content" space and "user interface"
space. Are you suggesting that if the attributes "xlink:show" &
"xlink:actuate" would be missing from the specification then the
specification would be more successful ?
Honestly I do not understand your complain here: XLINK is a
specification, so, like any standard it needs some fixed attribute or
element name. The same goes for all the specifications. Lets take the
XML Schema specification: you have some standard tags like
"complexType, simpleType, complexContent" a.s.o. You could complain
that XML Schema is useless because it forces you to use a certain set
If XLink is in the user
interface space then it's reasonable for it to have its own vocabulary.
But then it needs to be part of the user interface family of specs like
XHTML. Why should it be in a specification all on its own?
If XLink isn't in the user
interface space then I don't know what it's doing: I don't
want standard attributes for defining relationships, I want to define
I think XLink has never really
decided whether it's in the "information content" space or the "user
interface" space, and that's why no-one is using it.