Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Not to worry, Peter. We've practiced. :) Essentially, xml:href adds application semantics to the XML specification. XML abhors application semantics in its specification. Adding those violates the simplicity constraint. Application specifications are free to do that. IOW, you are asking the wrong list. Or maybe not, but the point is, XML doesn't specify XML applications past what is needed for XML itself. Functional specifications for inter XML linking are a snap. Functional linking to other media types is built into the web. What is the scope for xml:href linking and how does that differ from what is currently possible with previously specified technologies? One compelling argument for functionally-spec'd XML is authoring common document type collections, eg, TOCs, typed indices, figure/table collections, etc. Tbese are human cultural notation types. Building those into a system for use by humans is never wrong, IMHO. len -----Original Message----- From: Rushforth, Peter [mailto:Peter.Rushforth@N...] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 6:55 PM To: Len Bullard; Simon St.Laurent Cc: liam@w...; xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type Not to preach, but I have always felt that respect for what has been achieved is a good place to start any conversation. I am merely asking why some simple steps can't be taken to move the yardsticks a bit. Not any steps: the steps I am proposing. Cheers, Peter ________________________________________ From: Len Bullard [Len.Bullard@s...] Sent: April 16, 2012 4:36 PM To: Simon St.Laurent; Rushforth, Peter Cc: liam@w...; xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type And so it begins. The early HTML people disdained SGML as overbuilt and too hard to understand because they had yet to understand how and why it worked for the applications to which it had been applied. The SGML people returned the disdain but helped them anyway. Some decades on, as predicted, attempts to reinvent the early work on hypertext by the SGML community that evolved into the XML community continue. At this point, everyone shares A working system so those attempts have yet to produce a compelling case. It is somewhat as if once shown that a Ford A-model could double as a truck, no one needed anything better. Cab heat would be nice but who wants to put the fur traders out of business? Why no xml:href? How many systems does it take to change a light bulb? No one cares while the bulb is lit. Why bolt a function-type system onto a syntax standard? (Linking is a process; not data). len -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 3:15 PM To: Rushforth, Peter Cc: liam@w...; xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type The early XML folks may have found HTML to be not what they wanted, and seriously lacking in many respects, and the people driving the HTML conversation today return the disdain What a misfire! _______________________________________________________________________ XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS to support XML implementation and development. To minimize spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l... subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l... List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
