Re: The Web as an Application

Good point I forgot that base was for xlink not external entities.
Still this model suggests that hypermedia should be at the same level as xlink in terms of specifications.

( argue why xlink is not in core XML ?)

Furthermore I suggest for practical purposes the different is moot.  I have extrmely confidence ANYONE can get more stuff added to core XML unless it is shown to have high adoption,
Which is a chicken and egg problem ... But it is still reality.

I suggest for practical reasons if we want to make progress we examine xlink and determine why exactly it fails to meet the needs of hypermedia, and if so propose a Change or replacement to that.



Sent from my iPad (excuse the terseness) 
David A Lee
dlee@marklogic.com
812-630-7622


On Jun 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca> wrote:

> David,
> 
>> Only one of these (xml:base) is even close to language 
>> oriented.   and xml:base is *only* there to serve the problem 
>> which was generated by allowing external parsed entities.   
>> xml:base doesnt let you link to anything ... it is only 
>> informational about where parts of a XML docuement may have 
>> come from that were not where you originally asked for it.   
> 
> To quote from [1]: 
> 
> "This document describes a mechanism for 
> providing base URI services to XLink, but as a modular 
> specification so that other XML applications benefiting 
> from additional control over relative URIs but not built upon 
> XLink can also make use of it."
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
> 
>> It has nothing at all to do with the application layer.
> 
> Not true.  See above reference to "other XML applications". 
> 
> And the spirit of pipe and filter seems to me reflected in that
> statement.  And many applications could benefit from 'control
> over relative URIs', although the important fact is URI, 
> relative or absolute.  
> 
> Cheers,
> Peter

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 17:14:34 UTC