Re: Name for XML-LINK (Was: Re: Initial draft of XML-Link...)
Jon Bosak wrote:
> [Tim Bray:]
> | 3. Note that one of the areas remaining undecided is: what do we call
> | this puppy? In the draft, it veers amusingly between being called XHL
> | (Extensible Hyper Linkage) and XHA (X. Hypertext Architecture),
> | depending on who wrote the section; Jon Bosak always says "XML-Link",
> | but I don't know if that represents an opinion.
> I would like to keep "XML" in there somewhere as a marketing ploy to
> build name recognition for a suite of integrated (albeit separately
> usable) standards, but that's just my opinion.
> | I *think* [Jon, shout if you disagree] that this would be an area to
> | which the WG could usefully turn their attention, during the very
> | short time before we start to emit large numbers of votable items in
> | Michael's A., B., C., style to provide a structure for the meat &
> | potatoes debate.
> Sure, as long as it doesn't distract from the rest of the discussion.
> Perhaps people who have an opinion on this could simply state it and
> try to avoid protracted interchanges. The business of naming will be
> decided by the ERB, and they will remember brief statements better
> than long debates.
XML works fine. The issue of separation is one for the normative
text. I think expressing the idea that this is an integrated suite is
important to understanding the overall intent of XML and its flexibility
for implementors. The WG has provided a set of specifications that
taken as a whole, describe an integrated design for applying generalized
markup to Internet hypermedia. The separability of the components
of the specification enable each implementation to be effective within
the required environment. Thus, an implementor can plan for a stable
migration to the entire suite, choose a valid subset for a particular
requirement, or implement the entire suite.