[sc34wg3] XLink support in XTM

[Murray Altheim]

Quoting Lars Marius Garshol <larsga at ontopia.net>:

>
> * Jirka Kosek
>>
>> This is not longer true. XLink 1.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/)  
>> will make xlink:type="simple" default if it is not specified.
>
> That's good, as it removes one obstacle if we use XLink 1.1.  
> (Provided this doesn't change before it goes REC, obviously.) Thank  
> you for pointing it out.
>
> The core of the argument against using XLink remains, though.

Lars Marius,

I've never heard the argument against XLink explained, except that
it somehow is considered more complicated than not having it (which
is demonstrably only the matter of having to specify an additional
namespace, if XLink 1.1 is used). As I stated, this is a false
economy, as for the price of admission one is getting a readymade
link model, one approved as the linking model for XML by the W3C.

I've not heard an answer to my query, so I'm assuming that in the
absence of XLink, XTM 2.0 would simply not specify any linking model
at all in the standard? I.e., if the alink model, syntax and
behaviour provided by XLink are abandoned, the ISO standard would
simply leave a hole where XLink was? Or do you have some substitute
text planned?

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray06 at altheim.com>                              ===  = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/                                     = =  ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk               = =  = =

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu