Re: XLink: behavior must go!

["Jonathan Borden" <jborden@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Martin Bryan wrote:

>Paul Prescod wrote:
>
>>I believe that the XLink behavioral attributes should be removed.
>Theoretically they mix presentation and structure. This causes all kinds
>of practical problems addressed below:
>
>Behaviour *must* stay. What we need is some mechanism for passing through
>behaviour control properties from the instance to the XSLT. The behaviour
>attribute provides us with a standardized point which we can query from
>within XSLT to determine which types of behaviour a particular instance of
>an object should have. In fact the behaviour attribute should move from the
>XLink to XML standard, as xml:behaviour-control, but that is is bit too
>radical for people to bite off just yet. In the meantime it is vital that
at
>least XLink provides us with a standardized mechanism for controlling
>instance behaviour. (Paul is right to say this is really a "hints"
>thing -but it is something more than a hint - it is a set of parameters
that
>can be used to control behaviour where appropriate.)
>


    Is there anything within XLink itself that cannot be replaced by XSLT
now that doc() and docref() have been defined? Does XLink not become
something akin to a standard set of XSLT templates used for handling URI
traversal? doc() and docref(), as well as unification with XPointer turn
XSLT into a generalized graph transformation language. Could the XLink spec
itself become an XSLT include file?

Jonathan Borden
http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list