Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 16 April 2012 15:41, Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@n...> wrote: >> However, I think >> the first reaction was to point you towards XLink and XPointer. > > Yes, others have pointed that out. Â I'm thinking about RESTful use of > XML. Â REST is the basis on which the Web's protocol is designed. > "typed" links are a fundamental part of REST, I think. > > So, my question is, what is the simplest change that could be made > to XML which would enable its "success" on the web? Â My suggestion > is to insert linking lower down in the XML technology stack than > what is done by XLink. I'd encourage you (if you haven't already) to dip into the 1000s of messages and posts that have been written about XHTML 'vs' non-XML HTML (HTML5, WHATWG, etc.). Most of the fire in those exchanges wasn't about linking notations, but rather around XML's alleged brittleness vs HTML's support for more lax, tag-soup parsing when the content is partly broken. A preference amongst Web developers for JSON rather than XML, and Javascript rather than XQuery/XSLT, is also part of the mix. http://blog.jclark.com/2010/11/xml-vs-web_24.html and http://norman.walsh.name/2010/11/17/deprecatingXML give some flavour of that discussion. Or http://annevankesteren.nl/2007/10/xml5 cheers, Dan
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
