Re: [xml-dev] Xlink Isn't Dead

[Ben Trafford <ben@prodigal.ca>]

At 02:12 PM 9/24/2006, peter murray-rust wrote:
>I may be old-fashioned but I would prefer an XML spec for links to 
>RDF. That is not to say I don't use RDF but it is rather too 
>flexible for me. I would like a link which can be strongly typed.

         Please define what you mean by "strongly typed."

>For those who don't remember what we did with SAX it's worth 
>revisiting the archives. Essentially DavidM ran it with a weekly 
>series of questions and members mailed him directly. Then each week 
>he digested these and came out with a revised vision *and* running 
>prototype code. The latter is VERY important.

         Yes, but difficult, especially since my work is focused 
around rendering it. Making it function in a web browser would be 
problematic, at best -- but not impossible, especially given 
Forefox's ability to handle plugins. I'll need to see how much access 
the extension framework gives me to the rendering engine itself.

>I think the issues have been aired enough to make a good concise 
>start. It is important to limit the discursion -  this list is now 
>rather noisy, and to set timelines. Of course they can be revised. 
>But we are much wiser now about what we want.

         Well, I'm still hearing two camps: 1) The people who want to 
render links, and 2) the people who want to do interesting semantic 
things with links.

         I rather suspect my work's going to appeal to Camp 1, and 
probably not so much to Camp 2, from whom I'll need a lot of input to 
do smart things.

--->Ben