- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 18:54:50 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Tim Bray says: > OK, let's simplify. I said "Use XLink for XXX". Mike said "That's > because it's generic XML". I say "No, because I think it's good > design for XXX." Now I guess I could be lying. But I'm not. -Tim I've not said that you're lying - I've said something more along the lines of "I don't think that means what you think it means." If that's what you mean, it's worth exploring in greater depth. I don't find XLink to be particularly good design. Technical defenses of XLink seem to be as few in number as technical attacks on XLink that the TAG considers worthy. XLink is already written and made a Recommendation. Those political factors aside - What actually makes XLink a good fit for XHTML? Do any of those factors justify making it the only fit for XHTML? (Possible alternatives for such external linkbases, also already written, include RDF and XML Topic Maps. Other alternatives include some kind of AF-like approach or a vocabulary created with explicit XHTML resonance.) ------------- 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, 4 October 2002 18:54:52 UTC