RE: [xml-dev] xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type

["Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>]

Not to  preach, but I have always felt that respect for what has been achieved is a good place to start any conversation.

I am merely asking why some simple steps can't be taken to move the yardsticks a bit.  Not any steps:
the steps I am proposing.

Cheers,
Peter
________________________________________
From: Len Bullard [Len.Bullard@ses-i.com]
Sent: April 16, 2012 4:36 PM
To: Simon St.Laurent; Rushforth, Peter
Cc: liam@w3.org; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type

And so it begins.

The early HTML people disdained SGML as overbuilt and too hard to
understand because they had yet to understand how and why it worked for
the applications to which it had been applied.  The SGML people returned
the disdain but helped them anyway.

Some decades on, as predicted, attempts to reinvent the early work on
hypertext by the SGML community that evolved into the XML community
continue.  At this point, everyone shares A working system so those
attempts have yet to produce a compelling case.   It is somewhat as if
once shown that a Ford A-model could double as a truck, no one needed
anything better.  Cab heat would be nice but who wants to put the fur
traders out of business?

Why no xml:href?   How many systems does it take to change a light bulb?
No one cares while the bulb is lit.

Why bolt a function-type system onto a syntax standard?  (Linking is a
process; not data).

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 3:15 PM
To: Rushforth, Peter
Cc: liam@w3.org; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type


The early XML folks may have found HTML to be not what they wanted, and
seriously lacking in many respects, and the people driving the HTML
conversation today return the disdain


What a misfire!