[sc34wg3] XLink support in XTM

[Conal Tuohy]

> * Murray Altheim
> >
> > No value? You get a linking model, semantics and syntax.

Lars Marius Garshol:
 
> Yes, but do we actually want any of that? It may sound like a  
> rhetorical question, but it's not. XTM is the transport syntax for  
> TMDM instances. Does it really need a linking model? If so, what  
> would we use the linking model for? (Maybe I just don't understand  
> what you mean by "linking model".)

I'm not sure if know what Murray intends to include in that term,
either, but if it includes, for instance, this section (about the
xlink:href attribute) from the XLink spec, then I'm all for it: 

http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/#link-locators

It references IRIs, how to escape special characters in URIs, xml:base,
and XPointer. All of this, I think, is worth having. I'm absolutely
convinced that XTM 2 should conform to this specification. I would
certainly be appalled if XTM 2, for instance, handled xml:base
differently to the XLink spec, or simply failed to be specific about it.
IMHO there's no better way to indicate this conformance than to include
the XLink spec by reference.

I realise that much of XLink (extended links) is irrelevant to XTM, but
I think so long as the XTM spec makes it clear that XTM links are ALL
"simple" XLinks, then all of that stuff (extended links, locators, arcs
and roles...) needn't be seen as a complication in the XTM spec itself.

Cheers!

Con