RE: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink

Hi Mike,

Mike said:
We need to work for conceptual integrity, not foolish consistency.

Didier replies:
Precisely, up to now, as a mathematician myself (since you referred a
lot about Maths history), any necessary elements were not displayed to
the global community that would prevent using xLink in XHTML. The main
argument, from the social point of view would that XHTML has to be
backward compatible with XHTML 1.0, but even this point is voided by the
other constructs' addition/modifications brought to the spec.
In-contrario, other arguments supporting the usage of xlink have been
brought to the table
a) re-use of xlink processors in different contexts. Support of xlink
here at the syntax level is sufficient and necessary. Otherwise, these
same processors would need to map to the different linking languages.
This would accomplished with extra costs and increased complexity.
b) reduce the learning process if users of the xml framework learn a
single linking vocabulary and rules. They can re-apply this knowledge to
any other languages using this common linking vocabulary/set of rules.
Again, from a cognitive point of view, a necessary and sufficient
condition is that a single vocabulary/set of rules is to be learned,
otherwise, the xml framework users will need to integrate mapping rules
and thus, this would induce increases complexity and mental work load.
c) The possibility in the future to add one-to-many links. This would be
translated into the addition of a useful feature (in certain contexts).
Not using the xlink feature would imply to re-invent one and would just
bring more complexity to the xml framework.

Major implicit principles in maths are to reduce the complexity (if
possible), to reduce the redundancy of concepts (no need to invent a new
Riemann or Lebesgue integral), to use logical
connection/deduction/induction between constructs.

I do not see how using xlink would reduce any conceptual integrity for
the xml framework. To the contrary, it may improve it.

Didier PH Martin

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 12:02:01 UTC