Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> was heard to say:
| Beyond XHTML, I think it is necessary to be able to say:
|
| <cv:doctor
|     cv:doctorate="http://.../university"
|     cv:specialty="http://.../"
|     cv:homepage="http://.../"/>
|
| Basically I should get the benefits of standardized link recognition
| without contorting my vocabulary around XLink at all.

So stand-off markup is a requirement in your view. No global attribute
names, no namespaced element names, only something that puts all of
the link descriptions "out of line".

Others have the view that links are sufficiently fundamental that they
should be inline, recognizable in the surface syntax without a
specific schema or other external description.

That's an impasse.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | Society is immoral and immortal; it can
XML Standards Architect | afford to commit any kind of folly, and
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | indulge in any kind of vice; it cannot be
                        | killed, and the fragments that survive can
                        | always laugh at the dead.--Henry Adams
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE9m0VyOyltUcwYWjsRApXRAJ9nwaHA4kQBm1dzJ7dwW7RxtVEoTgCgjDBx
3a8kuKK/DBYTe8FL5EV/gfY=
=owNM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 15:14:42 UTC