• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• To: "'Louis Matherne'" <matherne@o...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:25:12 +0100

> I'd be very interested in hearing 
> your perspective or learning what you would have done 
> different with XBRL relative to its structure and 
> specifically Xlink, which is fundamental to its architecture.

I think the interesting question to ask is whether XBRL gains any benefits
as a result of the decision to use the XLink vocabulary for linking, rather
than inventing its own? For example, does the reuse of vocabulary elements
enable any reuse of an underlying software layer? Or does it enable the
reuse of skills and knowledge associated with that vocabulary? Because
unless it achieves such benefits, it would surely have been better to design
a vocabulary more finely tuned to the specific needs of XBRL.


Regards,

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XPointer is dead. What about XLink?
    • From: "Louis Matherne" <matherne@o...>
  • Re: XPointer is dead. What about XLink?
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>

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