What do you mean perma threads?
is that within the w3 specifications?
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Len Bullard wrote:
> Yes it does. Are you saying that associating semantics with the XLink
> markup are:
>
>
>
> O incompletely associated/specified (not enough data)?
>
> O over specified (too much data that you have to ignore)?
>
> O not precise enough about the semantic/process associated (the problem is
> not the markup specification but the process specification)?
>
>
>
> You are right that the whole point of indirect association is to specify a
> process. Typically when a markup language becomes controversial, it is not
> because of the markup (trivial to model that) but because of the
> specification for the object that consumes it. That is one reason for perma
> threads in XML: debating syntax and data declaration instead of object
> methods where the real problems of specification are harder and Not XML
> anyway.
>
>
>
> len
>
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:]
>
>
>
> GML (Geography Markup Language) also relies on XLink for semantic
> association and represents a growing community, riding a gradual uptake of
> OGC WFS services.
>
> With metadata standards rapidly maturing in this domain, the GML community
> is coming to a point where enterprise support for GML will require custom
> XLink models/processors.
>
> Previous experiences with XLink have left me thinking that the effort/reward
> ratio is far too low.
>
> I'm interested by the direction of this thread though.
>
>
>
> Nick Ardlie
>
> http://www.paleboundary.com <http://www.paleboundary.com/>
>
>
