Subject: RE: HyTime, XLink and XPointers (was Re: The DSSSList Digest V3 #48) From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:59:17 -0400 |
Hi Ralph, Answer to post below: Exactly this is mainly a question of mind share. A lot of people will probably use XML without knowing that the ancestor is SGML nor that XML is a SGML subset. Same thing for Hytime. XPointer and XLink have a lot bigger mind share than Hytime. There will probably be more publications, more articles, more books about XLink/XPointer then Hytime ever had. Lets call these activities: "idea marketing". Actually, the only thing I can notice is how much "idea marketing" is made on XLink/XPointer and how little is made on Hytime. So, this is not a question of technical virtue or What is the subset of what but mainly a question of mind share and mind share byproduct such as number of implementations and number of people having knowledge of this technology. regards Didier PH Martin mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.netfolder.com Post: At 09:48 AM 5/27/99 -0400, W. Eliot Kimber wrote: >Let me make something very clear: There is *absolutely no conflict* >between HyTime and XLink or between HyTime and XPointers (or TEI >locators). In the technical sense, no. HyBrick, after all, implements XPointer in terms of the HyTime property set. > >So I don't want to hear anything more about "conflicts" or "competition" >between HyTime and other facilities that do linking and addressing in an >SGML/XML context, because there aren't any. > >The choice to use XLink/XPointer or HyTime is one you should make based >on best fit for requirements. > >XLink provides a natural and smooth migration path to a more-functional >HyTime-based solution, such that as you reach the limits of what XLink >provides, The operant phrase here is "migration path." For those who believe that SGML, and by extension HyTime, are still "viable" standards, the "migration path" concept makes sense. But that point of view has never been endorsed, either formally or informally, in the work on XML. On the contrary, consider, for example, the comment by James Clark, who wrote to the DSSSList a few days ago: > My general feeling is that just as the future is XML not SGML, so the future is > also XSL not DSSSL. Those who agree with James' statement are unlikely to support HyTime "migration"; they are more likely to add "the future is XLink/XPointer, not HyTime." And that makes the work on XLink/XPointer open-ended, *if these specs are to support the vertical apps I alluded to in my last message.* Given the choices: - migrate to SGML/HyTime for vertical market apps, or - re-write the DTDs and/or expand the XLink/XPointer specs to support these apps many people seem to think the latter is what will/should happen. In fact, wasn't that the first response by many vertical industry work groups - announce they were XML-ifying their DTDs - because free XML browsers from M & N are going to support all these features, regardless of how complex they become? Best regards, Ralph E. Ferris Fujitsu Software Corporation DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
HyTime, XLink and XPointers (was Re, Ralph Ferris | Thread | RE: TeX backend (was re: The DSSSLi, Wroth, Mark |
RE: putting XSL and DSSSL in perspe, Didier PH Martin | Date | Newbie question, Guillaume Rouchy |
Month |