|
1) Once politely included in some specs and standards, a form can pick up momentum. Then its utility gets extended and work on it becomes more serious. Microdiversity is the source of speciation.
2) XLink itself isn't that powerful. The underlying design issue is that of typed links. This is an old idea and it shows up in many places. I suspect that even though we have ways of doing that without putting it in the XML, the need to interoperate semantically will increase the return to this attractor until it becomes a more prominent feature. As a result, arch forms or their like will also come back and as one might expect, do battle with RDF.
History is, oddly enough, on the side of the typed links. They are easier to learn and by the time this reemergence occurs, the Semantic Web systems may be overbuilt as a result of beggaring application, the same problem that SGML and Hytime/DSSSL had. If history repeats itself, the new kids on the block adopt an old idea, rename it, and fight the adults who are of course, the old kids on the block who fought SGML and HyTime/DSSSL.
Doing what makes parents mad is the usual answer to the lyrical question "oh very young what will you leave us this time".
|
Previous Message
