RE: two failings of XLink

Didier replied:

>it seems that Micah says that the xlinks extended do need the
>arc defined.

Hi Didier,

Tiny point--Extended XLinks don't generally "need" arcs defined--they are
perfectly valid without any arc-type elements. But to omit them changes the
structure of the link and thus compromises the expressive power of XLink.
Likewise for omitting the xlink:type="resource" element.

In other words, my position is that rather than defining prose "shortcuts"
around or on top of inconvenient parts of XLink 1.0, it's better to just
make the needed (hopefully minor) changes to XLink.

>maybe a minor modification can be brought to the xlink specs to remove
>this constraint.

I am optimistic. Certainly these discussions are proving productive.



Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 18:16:36 UTC