At 09:57 AM 9/28/2006, Melvin Chin wrote:
>Why would it necessarily be in generic XML? XPath isn't, though it
>inherits the "X" prefix.
Because there are dozens of different ways to declare a link
in different XML applications. DocBook does it differently than
XHTML, CML does it differently (and for different purposes) than DocBook, etc.
As soon as we specify links via a rigid vocabulary that must
exist in the markup, we lose interoperability between different XML
applications.
>I'd think links can be interpreted as a separate class of "data
>about relationships".
> From this angle, its use and arguments about its importance and
> non-importance
>(which defines the "right" in your 80/20) would be different from
>just considering
>links' contribution to styles.
I agree...which leads me back to my previous question --
does XLink cover the necessary aspects of "data about relationships"
as it stands?
--->Ben
