- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:06:10 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
Hi Norm, > | Getting something that's easy for users to > | include -- in their schema, in their CSS or wherever -- will be the > | deciding factor. > > Maybe. A lot of folks have trouble with indirection, the > overwhelming majority will never write a schema, Do you think that the vast majority *will* write a DTD? This is one of the things that I don't understand about objections to HLink on the basis of too much indirection -- to use XLink properly, you really have to have a DTD to add defaulted attributes to your document -- it's horribly messy if you don't. You don't avoid indirection by using XLink, you just have indirection to a DTD rather than to anything else. Now admittedly DTDs have the advantage of being built into XML rather than layered on top, but it's still indirection. > and I guess at the end of the day sophisticated linking is really > just a "nice to have". Then maybe *simple* linking would be something to aim for? Like Paul Prescod said: > But XLink is pretty near pessimal along all axes. If links are so > important that they should be burned deep into the syntax then the > appropriate namespace is "xml" and the specification should be VERY > SHORT, VERY SIMPLE and VERY APPLICATION AGNOSTIC. Surely it isn't > the case that links are "fundamental" to hypertext and somehow > unimportant to database-style applications. They don't call it the > "relational" model for nothing. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 07:13:32 UTC