[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: Xlink

Subject: Re: Xlink
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 10:32:46 -0400

At 11:40 AM 4/10/99 -0400, John E. Simpson wrote:
>Well, you're a perennially impatient malcontent and rabble-rouser. :)  

Have to do what I'm good at!

>A more benign view of the deep freeze is that the current (admittedly
>aging, in Webtime) WD comes pretty close to the mark, and that the Working
>Group has been waiting for experimental implementations (like yours, and
>Hybrick) to point up the ways in which the spec is unworkable -- or
>workable but too difficult. (This would be aside from any holes in the spec
>that don't require *doing* XLink to be obvious, of course.)

I think there are some substantial holes in the WD that really need to be
addressed, and a lot more explanation.  I'm very concerned that people seem
to think XLink is done, when in my view there's a lot more work to be done.

(See the comments at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/ for a number
of views on what's left to do.)

>That said, I think I'm even more eager for XLink/XPointer to solidify than
>for XSL. Once you've tasted XLink's Chunky Monkey, it's hard to reconcile
>yourself to HTML's vanilla.

Completely agreed.  I'm looking forward to XLink/XPointer very much.  It's
the first 'concrete' tool that I can use to sell XML to Web folks,
providing them with genuninely more powerful functionality than HTML in
ways that are immediately useful (and lower site management costs!).

Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list

Current Thread