• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Current status of XLink
• From: "Andrew Welch" <AWelch@p...>
• Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:41:09 -0000
• Thread-index: AcQSveKrVmxTdI4AQU2mEivFoyqJfAAWHTfw
• Thread-topic: Current status of XLink

Thanks for all the info.

My current solution appears to be loosely related to topic maps (in that
the links are defined externally to the things they link together), and
a superset of xlink *apart* from the range features of xpointer. 

As there doesn't appear to be a 'standard' form of (extensible)
independent linking at the moment, I think its safe to continue down the
proprietary route for now.

cheers
andrew  


> >What is the current status of Xlink?
> 
> I wrote something at 
> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/03/13/xlink.html two years ago 
> about how little it had been used since becoming a 
> Recommendation, and it hasn't been used much since, with one 
> significant exception that Tony Coates pointed out when the 
> article came out: XLink does play a significant role in XBRL, 
> and XBRL is doing quite well.
> 
> My theory about XLink's lack of success is the lack of 
> evangelism. No one likes it enough to write up 
> implementations and push it at the conferences. RDF and Topic 
> Maps, which address many of the same issues that XLink was 
> positioned as addressing, drew off many of XLink's proponents 
> and no one seems to be left to push it as a solution to 
> existing problems or as a way to implement new classes of 
> applications. 
> 
> There are technical issues as well about XLink's strengths 
> and weaknesses, but you can find plenty of discussions of 
> those by searching xml-dev archives.
> 
> I have been curious about Mozilla's evolving support, though. 
> 
> Bob

• Prev by Date: RE: RDDL and user interface
• Next by Date: Re: Current status of XLink
• Previous by thread: RE: Regd XML Digital Signatures
• Next by thread: Re: Current status of XLink
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread