• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:07:45 +0100

> It's probably time to reconsider it, as I think the Web is 
> finally open to new possibilities again. 

At the XML level, links/relationships should (just like elements and
attributes) be marked up in whatever way the particular vocabulary designer
thinks appropriate.

In a user interface vocabulary, such as HTML or XSL-FO, there is a need to
standardize how links are represented.

But if we want enhanced behaviour for links, the first thing is to put it at
the right point in the architecture. That's the user-interface vocabulary,
not the data representation - and that's what XLink got wrong.

Regards,

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
http://twitter.com/michaelhkay 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XPointer is dead. What about XLink?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XPointer is dead. What about XLink?
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>

• 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...>
  • Re: XPointer is dead. What about XLink?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>