- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:43:45 +0900
- To: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Cc: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>, "public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org" <public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org>
On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 18:03 +0000, David Lee wrote: > On further reflection, > I need to just admit that I am not compatible with this groups > agenda. > The rest of you are completely welcome to proceed as you see fit, but > I won't be able to add any further help as I dont agree with the > fundamental assertion that this project can only be fulfilled by > adding attributes to the xml namespace. There are few human endeavours that can only be achieved with a single technology. Getting even minimal xlink support as a required feature in all xml systems, from air traffic controllers to camera menus, from music players to car engine controllers, would reduce interoparbility at a very basic level. Worse, XLink support depends on having some sort of data model, which XML does not provide. I did suggest a W3C for discussion that might lead to standards work, yes. Discussion has to be open to many possible approaches to a problem. For me personally, the main reason not to have arbitrary XML on the Web on my own Web sites is financial: 1. the search engines don't know how to generate good snippets (no architectural forms); 2. No way to include JavaScript, so hard to support ads. Without addressing 1 and 2, I can't afford to move my own personal Web sites to XML, and even if I did, it wouldn't be in my users' best interests. So for me personally, those are the issues that must be addressed first. But if those were addressed, I'd be interested in thinking more about linking from one page I can't currently deploy to another page I can't currently deploy :-) Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Saturday, 8 June 2013 01:44:30 UTC