• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:02:48 +0100
• Cc: XML Developer List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F1C3@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F1C3@h...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> So all you want is xlink:href as a flag there is a relationship 
> and you will defer any and all other semantic flags to the surrounding 
> markup?

I could live with a spec that would start with that very minimum and 
later grows to encompass more advanced uses as they appear in the wild, yes.

> Doesn't the http:// tell you there is a relationship? 
> What am I missing?

Doesn't fly too well with relative references does it? ;) And even if 
you get rid of those, you're still really into the 
m/^(http|ftp|file|...):/i heuristics there.

-- 
Robin Berjon

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
    • From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>

• References:
  • RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Next by Date: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Previous by thread: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Next by thread: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread