Re: Architectural issue: component specifications (was More on xlink- 23)

Micah Dubinko wrote:
> SSL writes:
>>XLink's interesting and occasionally useful, but I hardly think it's
>>worth inflicting on every XML spec that happens to need hypertext
> There's an architectural issue in there:
> Increasingly, the W3C produces 'component' specifications that have no
> application in and of themselves, but rather serve as building blocks for
> other specifications. XLink and XForms are examples, as are XPath, XInclude,
> and XML Base.
> The architectural issue is the nature of constraints placed on broader
> "containing specs" that might benefit from using the component specs.
> Desirable or to be avoided? For the XForms and XLink topic under discussion,
> this cuts both ways.

This issue is being discussed elsewhere within W3C as well.

I feel it's a policy issue rather than an architectural issue:

    Should/must all W3C specifications hencefore use the
    specification Y?

It's not clear yet where this type of policy requirement
should be made within a specification (in addition to
its technical constraints) or outside the specification.

  - Ian

Ian Jacobs (
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 16:10:53 UTC