Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Norman Gray <norman@a...> wrote: | My (HyTime-inflected) expectation of XLink was that attribute mapping was | the point of it, Mostly it was, in the beginning, when the namespace bogosity was not yet beloved dogma. | and I recall being surprised when it first appeared, that there was no | provision for that at all. Once colonification became a Standing Order, perforce XLink development under W3C aegis had to ob^H^Hconf^H^H^H^Hreconsider. | Attribute remapping means that documents and DTDs can import semantics | for free, By annotative means, yes. | and a remapper-aware processor can discover a new <goto place="..." | >content</goto> element and know what it's expected to do with it. Yes, the semantics of remapping are entirely generic and mechanical, in effect operating at the syntax level. | However, your description of it as merely `really quite nice' suggests | that there's a use-case here for which XLink's practice of scattering | special attributes is an adequate solution. What am I missing? The case when all kids agree that only one kid can play in the sandbox. (The supposed necessity of colonification rests on the dogmatic premise that name mapping is *un*necessary.)
|
