Subject: Re: XPDL (was Re: XML is broken) From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:19:54 +0100 |
Hi. I agree with you here. I'm swinging to the point of view that the XML document should in an ideal world the XML document should know zero about anything outside of itself, being purely a data-set. And the issue of manifests, while very appealing, I feel might be best solved from XLink/XPointer. If this where rich enough then an XLink/XPointer resource could constitute a manifest. I'm not sure what the advantages of another proposal in this area might offer except to confuse an already confusing area. I confess to a heavy personal bias here, and am merely expressing preference, not making assertions of "the one true path", but would we be better addressing the shortcommings of XLink, and see if the W3C can't be given a kick. People have explained to me why the W3C need to take such an unholy amount of time over these standards comprising of a handful of tags, but I seem to have forgotten. Is there a mailing list that XLink falls within the remit of? (xml-dev?) At the moment it seems to suffer from a stunning lack of imagination. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 04/07/99 05:11:47 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: XPDL (was Re: XML is broken) [SNIP] My fundamental problem here is that I view this as a sort of layered approach, and I don't want the lower layers (XML) to have any knowledge of the upper layers (XLL, XSL, XPDL, etc.) XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: XPDL (was Re: XML is broken), Simon St.Laurent | Thread | Re: XPDL (was Re: XML is broken), Simon St.Laurent |
Re: Debugging Stylesheets When Usin, Guy_Murphy | Date | Re: XPDL (was Re: XML is broken), Simon St.Laurent |
Month |