• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:58:00 -0700
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B949@HQ5>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B949@HQ5>

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> I read this earlier and almost responded; it appears
> the WG is attemping a weak version of architectural
> forms.
>
> [...]
>
> Is this another case of changing the names and adopting
> a piece of another technology (namespaces) that makes
> the result more complicated than the original and
> ends up being less powerful?

Changing the names, yes; less powerful, perhaps;
but more complicated?  Definitely not.

The 'hlink:hlink' element does all that's required to
endow arbitrary host vocabulary elements with
XLink semantics, and it does so without using
all the PIs, NOTATION declarations, and levels of
indirection required by the HyTime 2 AFDR.  This
looks a lot simpler.

(OK, so it relies on XML Namespaces.  This is not,
in my eyes, a big deal; it's one of the few things
that XML namespaces are actually good for.)


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • RE: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
• Next by Date: The Gnomes of the Web Speak
• Previous by thread: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Next by thread: RE: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread