• From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:43:27 -0400

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 03:07:45PM +0100, Michael Kay wrote:
> 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.

+1

The problem to solve becomes link discovery -- that is, associating
"asserts a link"-ness with elements in an existing vocabulary.

SGML/HyTime people are allowed to jump up and down and say
"architectural forms" at this point.

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/

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