- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:58:45 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Jeni Tennison writes: > For what it's worth, I think that 'arcs' are the most problematic (and > objectionable) aspect of adopting the extended link syntax. (Which > isn't to say that I don't think there are other issues about using > XLink, just to try to highlight this one.) Perhaps XLink could just > drop them and we could use some other method (e.g. XML Events) to > describe how and when resources were loaded. That's very funny to me, since I consider extended links utterly useless in multi-ended hypertext linking when arcs aren't present. Sets are nice for some applications, but if I'm presenting text to a user, it's nice to know which resources are actually connected, and XML Events are a hideous approach to doing that. Maybe it's time to chuck the notion of generic linking altogether. I have a hard time arguing that anything in XML is generically useful any more except for the basic syntax, which lets us apply some very handy low-level tools like parsers and XSLT. The rest (XLink, schemas, etc.) has been a pointless trip into complexity. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 16:58:46 UTC