• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:31:10 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <r02000200-1028-B8D71B604D0211D8BABF0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• References: <r02000200-1028-B8D71B604D0211D8BABF0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> jcowan@r... writes:
>>Hypertext is a particular application of linking, a more basic notion.
>>It's a mistake to think of links solely in the hypertext context.
> 
> I don't think that changes the argument about the value of generic
> linking at all.  To put it bluntly, "one linking mechanism to rule them
> all" is ridiculous on its face.

Blunt is fine, but this particular instance is tragically unhelpful. Why 
is it ridiculous on its face, does it have a big red shiny nose or 
something?

-- 
Robin Berjon

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: genx - consensus items
• Next by Date: Re: genx - consensus items
• Previous by thread: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Next by thread: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread