• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:49:26 -0400

Michael Kay wrote:
>> What about XLink, is it being pursued by either standards 
>> groups or by implementors?
> 
> Well, for better or worse, XLink is actually used, for example in XBRL, but
> I think all the associated processing logic (and there isn't much) generally
> goes in the application, exactly as if the application had defined the links
> as part of its own vocabulary.

That's my understanding as well.

I've tried to keep an eye out for other XLink use, but it seems mostly 
to have perished.  Simple links are supported in a few browsers, but 
that particular dream faded.

It's probably time to reconsider it, as I think the Web is finally open 
to new possibilities again.  I'm not sure the reasons I think are behind 
that (see http://bit.ly/ORFC3 ) offer great hope for multiway links, 
though, unless we can tell a good story of how they make mobile phone 
applications that much more usable or exciting.

I would love to be wrong about this.  Every now and then I have exciting 
visions of a Web enhanced with these tools.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XPointer is dead. What about XLink?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• References:
  • XPointer is dead. What about XLink?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: XPointer is dead. What about XLink?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>