Re: An XLink telco issues roundup arguing for XLink remapping

At 16:45 2003 01 24 +0100, Lloyd Rutledge wrote:
>After mulling over last week's XLink telephone converence [1], I've
>made a summary of issues from the perspective of supporting the option
>of remapping link semantics on multiple attributes.  Here it is:
>The most important misconception may be that XLink discussion is
>between "elementists" and "attributists".  Perhaps the groups are
>better described as "elementists" and "choicists", or better:
>"element-alwaysists" and "remapping-if-and-when-best-ists". ....
> I am convinced, as are others, that a remapping
>meeting these requirements can be created and should be pursued.
>Before discussing author-based motivations for remapping, here's a
>more direct motivation: legacy.  All of the HTML, SMIL, etc. documents
>currently on the Web, and in any event most of those coming up in the
>next year to two, have no XLink elements in them. 

I have argued that XLink should provide an attribute remapping 
feature since the beginning of the XLink work, so I have--at 
least in the past--been very much in agreement with you on much 
of what you say.

However, I think you misunderstand a key point that distinguishes
among choices for at least some of us, and this point is one that
is pulling me back away from remapping.  It is the question I keep
phrasing as "how low level is linking?" or put another way, "should
the solution to linking be more like XML Base and XInclude (and xml:id)
or should it be more like CSS style?"

I note that XML Base must be written as xml:base.  There are no
remapping capabilities.  And the legacy of HTML's BASE element 
was not addressed.

XInclude must be written as xi:xinclude (where xi is a namespace
prefix mapped to the XInclude namespace).  There are no
remapping capabilities.  And the legacy of XML's external entity
references was not addressed.

The HTML WG itself has suggested [2] that an xml:id feature be developed.
One of the more common forms of this request requires that xml:id
be used as is and there would be no remapping capabilities.  (Though
some proposals do include some remapping features, [2] does not.)
The basic xml:id feature as suggested by [2] does not address any
legacy use of ids.

So if linking--something most of us agree is a very basic, inherent
feature of the web--should be more like XML Base and XInclude than
like presentation style such color and font-size, then it seems
not unreasonable to argue that remapping and legacy issues should
be weighed no more heavily that they were in the case of XML Base
and XInclude.




Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 12:01:29 UTC