Re: [xml-dev] XPointer is dead. What about XLink?

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

Michael Kay wrote:
> But if we want enhanced behaviour for links, the first thing is to put it at
> the right point in the architecture. That's the user-interface vocabulary,
> not the data representation - and that's what XLink got wrong.

Now that's a good subject for a Balisage talk, or maybe a set of talks.

I think that most of what XLink got wrong was political - there wasn't 
much effort at outreach to people who use links, and I think a lot of 
people assumed the benefits were obvious.

The architecture level question created a lot of issues, though, as 
behavior (user interface) is critical to explaining why these things are 
necessary, but the initial XLink approach seemed intent on defining only 
a data model.  (I'd say a partial data model at that.)

I wish I could I say there were clear lessons from the experience that 
might improve the odds of improving hypertext next time around, but 
well... I can't.  I suspect better hypertext will have to impress people 
in a walled garden before crossing over into the general web.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/