Re: [ciq] XLink Isn't Dead

["Ram Kumar" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>]

David,

 

As we agreed, we will use xlink schema that xbrl develops as an optional feature in ciq for interoperability with xbrl in addition to what we want to do for relationship linking which you have promised to provide.

 

Ram

 

On 9/23/06, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:

Ram,

 

We never said it was dead - just that its a barrier!  Norm clearly figures this too - docbook itself is a wildly complex piece of schema technology that he helps maintain.  Not sure we want to cast CIQ into that same maelstorm just yet! ; -)

 

Cheers, DW
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ciq] XLink Isn't Dead
From: "Ram Kumar" < kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, September 22, 2006 4:03 pm
To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org, "Max Voskob"
<max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>,  "Hugh Wallis" < hughwallis@xbrl.org>

Xlink Isn't Dead
XML-DEV Community, Permathread
22 Sept.06

Linking and addressing lie at the heart of hypertext. The W3C "XML
Linking Language (XLink)" is one of the key early specifications, and
(non-)use of its facilities gives rise to episodic discussion on the
XML-DEV list: "who is using it, and for what?"  The XLink specification
"defines the XML Linking Language (XLink), which allows elements to be
inserted into XML documents in order to create and describe links
between resources. It uses XML syntax to create structures that can
describe the simple unidirectional hyperlinks of today's HTML, as well
as more sophisticated links."  Samples from today's XML-DEV thread:
Michael Kay: "I think the big mistake in XLink is a failure to
recognize that there are two separate things: a relationship between
pieces of information, and a navigable hyperlink. We've achieved the
separation of content from presentation in other areas, we just
haven't achieved it for relationships. The presentation forms do need
better navigation facilities, and core XML also needs (much) better
facilities for modelling relationships..." Ben Trafford: "In an ideal
world, a lot of XLink would've gone into the styling languages. But we
weren't in an ideal world. That doesn't render the work invalid; the
ideas behind XLink are sound, they're just in the wrong place, i.e.
the document...." Norm Walsh: "One of my personal motivations for
touching XLink again was to make it practical to use XLink in DocBook
in a post-DTD world. DocBook V5.0 uses XLink more-or-less ubiquitously."

http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200609/threads.html#00219
See also the specifications: http://www.w3.org/XML/Linking